Minggu-minggu terakhir ini Indonesia 'digemparkan kemballi' oleh peristiwa pengumuman salah satu tokoh masyarakat Indonesia, KH Abdullah Gymnastiar, lebih sering disebut AA Gym, yang menyatakan telah menikah lagi untuk yang kedua kalinya. Wacana mengenai poligami ini kembali merebak, sedemikian hebat hingga Presiden SBY menyatakan akan melakukan revisi atas UU perkawinan. Di masyarakat, polemik yang sebelumnya sudah mereda sejak Poligami Awardnya Puspo Wardoyo beberapa tahun silam yang juga menghebohkan walaupun dalam skala 'richter' yang lebih kecil karena kalliber tokoh yang berbeda (saya pertama kali denger nama Puspo Wardoyo juga baru gara2 Poligami Award tsb hehehe).
merebak cukup dahsyat. berbagai tokoh masyarakat mulai dari ulama, artis, aktivis wanita, hingga ormas mengeluarkan pendapat baik yang pro, kontra, maupun netral.
Secara pribadi, saya Insya Allah memilih untuk tidak melakukan poligami.
Benar, dalam ajaran Islam diperbolehkan untuk memiliki 2, 3, atau 4 istri, dengan syarat harus dapat berlaku adil kepada istri-istrinya. Hal itu yang sering dilupakan oleh kawan2 yang berpoligami, bahwa keadilan tidaklah dilihat dari bagaimana ia melihat hubungannya
dengan para istrinya, justru bagaimana seorang istrinya melihat hubungannya dengan keluarganya secara keseluruhan
Baca , Artikan dan Pikirkan bacaan berikut ini .. ( diambil dari http://donnya.wordpress.com/2006/10/09/rahasia-dibalik-perkawinan-nabi-muhammad-saw/ )
RAHASIA DIBALIK PERKAWINAN NABI MUHAMMAD SAW.
Ketika orang-orang mendengar bahwa Nabi Muhammad SAW mempunyai banyak istri semasa hidupnya, banyaklah timbul suara-suara yang sumbang kearah Nabi Muhammad SAW.
Padahal, kalau mereka mau menelaah lebih dalam untuk mengetahui apa rahasia dibalik perkawinan Nabi Muhammad SAW, niscaya mereka akan mengerti dan memaklumi adanya bahkan akan memuji kepintaran strategi dari Nabi besar Muhammad SAW, yaitu : “political and social motives”.
Perkawinan pertamanya dengan Khadijah dilakukan ketika dia berumur 25 tahun dan Khadijah berumur 40 tahun. Selama hampir 25 tahuh, Nabi SAW hanya beristrikan Khadijah, sampai Khadijah meninggal dunia diumur 65 tahun (semoga Allah memberkahinya).
Hanya setelah Nabi SAW berumur lebih dari 50 tahun, barulah nabi SAW mulai menikah lagi. Dengan demikian jelaslah bahwa jika memang Nabi SAW hanya mencari kesenangan semata, tentulah tidak perlu beliau menunggu sampai berusia lebih dari 50 tahun, baru menikah lagi. Tapi Nabi Muhammad SAW tetap mencintai Khadijah selamaa 25 tahun, sampai Khadijah meninggal dunia di usia 65 tahun.
Perkawinannya selanjutnya mempunyai banyak motive. Beberapa perkawinan adalah dengan tujuan membantu wanita yang suaminya baru saja terbunuh didalam membela Islam. Yang lain adalah demi menambah dan mempererat hubungan dengan salah satu pendukung fanantik Islam, Abu Bakr (semoga Allah memberkahinya).
Ada juga dalam upaya membangun hubungan yang baik dengan suku-suku lain yang semula berniat memerangi Islam. Sehingga ketika Nabi SAW mengawininya, maka perang pun terhindarkan dan darah pun tak jadi tumpah.
Setidaknya, ada Professor Non-Muslim yang berkesempatan mempelajari secara langsung mengenai sejarah dan kehidupan Nabi Muhammad SAW berkesimpulan yang berbeda dengan kesimpulan kaum non-muslim lainnya.
John L. Esposito, Professor Religion and Director of Center for International Studies at the College of the holly cross, mengatakan bahwa hampir keseluruhan perkawinan Nabi Muhammad SAW adalah mempunyai misi sosial dan politik (political and social motives) (Islam The straight Path, Oxford University Press, 1988).
Salah seorang non-muslim lainnya, Caesar E. Farah menulis sebagai berikut: “In the prime of his youth and adult years Muhammad remained thoroughly devoted to Khadijah and would have none other for consort”.
Caesar Farah pun berkesimpulan bahwa perkawinan Nabi Muhammad SAW lebih karena alasan politis dan alasan menyelamatkan para janda yang suaminya meninggal dalam perang membela Islam.
Sehingga memang jika melihat lagi ke sejarah, maka dapatlah diketahui apa alasan sebenarnya perkawinan nabi Muhammad SAW.
Berikut ini kita tampilkan nama-nama Istri Nabi Muhammad SAW beserta sekilas penjelasannya:
1. Siti Khadijah: Nabi mengawini Khadijah ketika Nabi masih berumur 25 tahun, sedangkan Khadijah sudah berumur 40 tahun. Khadijah sebelumnya sudah menikah 2 kali sebelum menikah dengan Nabi SAW. Suami pertama Khadijah adalah Aby Haleh Al Tamimy dan suami keduanya adalah Oteaq Almakzomy, keduanya sudah meninggal sehingga menyebabkan Khadijah menjadi janda. Lima belas tahun setelah menikah dengan Khadijah, Nabi Muhammad SAW pun diangkat menjadi Nabi, yaitu pada umur 40 tahun. Khadijah meninggal pada tahun 621 A.D, dimana tahun itu bertepatan dengan Mi’raj nya Nabi Muhammad SAW ke Surga. Nabi SAW sangatlah mencintai Khadijah. Sehingga hanya setelah sepeninggalnya Khadijah lah Nabi SAW baru mau menikahi wanita lain.
2. SAWDA BINT ZAM’A: Suami pertamanya adalah Al Sakran Ibn Omro Ibn Abed Shamz, yang meninggal beberapa hari setelah kembali dari Ethiophia. Umur Sawda Bint Zam’a sudah 65 tahun, tua, miskin dan tidak ada yang mengurusinya. Inilah sebabnya kenapa Nabi SAW menikahinya.
3. AISHA SIDDIQA: Seorang perempuan bernama Kholeah Bint Hakeem menyarankan agar Nabi SAW mengawini Aisha, putri dari Aby Bakrs, dengan tujuan agar mendekatkan hubungan dengan keluarga Aby Bakr. Waktu itu Aishah sudah bertunangan dengan Jober Ibn Al Moteam Ibn Oday, yang pada saat itu adalah seorang Non-Muslim. Orang-orang di Makkah tidaklah keberatan dengan perkawinan Aishah, karena walaupun masih muda, tapi sudah cukup dewasa untuk mengerti tentang tanggung jawab didalam sebuah perkawinan. Nabi Muhammad SAW bertunangan dulu selama 2 tahun dengan Aishah sebelum kemudian mengawininya. Dan bapaknya Aishah, Abu Bakr pun kemudian menjadi khalifah pertama setelah Nabi SAW meninggal.
4. HAFSAH BINT U’MAR: Hafsah adalah putri dari Umar, khalifah ke dua. Pada mulanya, Umar meminta Usman mengawini anaknya, Hafsah. Tapi Usman menolak karena istrinya baru saja meninggal dan dia belum mau kawin lagi. Umar pun pergi menemui Abu Bakar yang juga menolak untuk mengawini Hafsah. Akhirnya Umar pun mengadu kepada nabi bahwa Usman dan Abu Bakar tidak mau menikahi anaknya. Nabi SAW pun berkata pada Umar bahwa anaknya akan menikah demikian juga Usman akan kawin lagi. Akhirnya, Usman mengawini putri Nabi SAW yiatu Umi Kaltsum, dan Hafsah sendiri kawin dengan Nabi SAW. Hal ini membuat Usman dan Umar gembira.
5. ZAINAB BINT KHUZAYMA: Suaminya meninggal pada perang UHUD, meninggalkan dia yang miskin dengan beberapa orang anak. Dia sudah tua ketika nabi SAW mengawininya. Dia meninggal 3 bulan setelah perkawinan yaitu pada tahun 625 A.D.
6. SALAMA BINT UMAYYA: Suaminya, Abud Allah Abud Al Assad Ibn Al Mogherab, meninggal dunia, sehingga meninggalkan dia dan anak-anaknya dalam keadaan miskin. Dia saat itu berumur 65 tahun. Abu Bakar dan beberapa sahabat lainnya meminta dia mengawini nya, tapi karena sangat cintanya dia pada suaminya, dia menolak. Baru setelah Nabi Muhammad SAW mengawininya dan merawat anak-anaknya, dia bersedia.
7. ZAYNAB BINT JAHSH: Dia adalah putri Bibinya Nabi Muhammad SAW, Umamah binti Abdul Muthalib. Pada awalnya Nabi Muhammad SAW sudah mengatur agar Zaynab mengawini Zayed Ibn Hereathah Al Kalby. Tapi perkawinan ini kandas ndak lama, dan Nabi menerima wahyu bahwa jika mereka bercerai nabi mesti mengawini Zaynab (surat 33:37).
8. JUAYRIYA BINT AL-HARITH: Suami pertamanya adalah Masafeah Ibn Safuan. Nabi Muhammad SAW menghendaki agar kelompok dari Juayreah (Bani Al Mostalaq) masuk Islam. Juayreah menjadi tahanan ketika Islam menang pada perang Al-Mustalaq (Battle of Al-Mustalaq). Bapak Juayreyah datang pada Nabi SAW dan memberikan uang sebagai penebus anaknya, Juayreyah. Nabi SAW pun meminta sang Bapak agar membiarkan Juayreayah untuk memilih. Ketika diberi hak untuk memilih, Juayreyah menyatakan ingin masuk islam dan menyatakan bahwa Nabi Muhammad SAW adalah utusan Allah yang terakhir. Akhirnya Nabi pun mengawininya, dan Bani Almustalaq pun masuk islam.
9. SAFIYYA BINT HUYAYY: Dia adalah dari kelompok Jahudi Bani Nadir. Dia sudah menikah dua kali sebelumnya, dan kemudian menikahi Nabi SAW. Cerita nya cukup menarik, mungkin Insha Allah disampaikan terpisah.
10. UMMU HABIBA BINT SUFYAN: Suami pertamanya adalah Aubed Allah Jahish. Dia adalah anak dari Bibi Rasulullah SAW. Aubed Allah meninggak di Ethiopia. Raja Ethiopia pun mengatur perkawinan dengan Nabi SAW. Dia sebenarnya menikah dengan nabi SAW pada 1 AH, tapi baru pada 7 A.H pindah dan tinggal bersama Nabi SAW di Madina, ketika nabi 60 tahun dan dia 35 tahun.
11. MAYMUNA BINT AL-HARITH: Dia masih berumur 36 tahun ketika menikah dengan Nabi Muhammad SAW yang sudah 60 tahun. Suami pertamanya adalah Abu Rahma Ibn Abed Alzey. Ketika Nabi SAW membuka Makkah di tahun 630 A.D, dia datang menemui Nabi SAW, masuk Islam dan meminta agar Rasullullah mengawininya. Akibatnya, banyaklah orang Makkah merasa terdorong untuk merima Islam dan nabi SAW.
12. MARIA AL-QABTIYYA: Dia awalnya adalah orang yang membantu menangani permasalahan dirumah Rasullullah yang dikirim oleh Raja Mesir. Dia sempat melahirkan seorang anak yang diberi nama Ibrahim. Ibrahim akhirnya meninggal pada umur 18 bulan. Tiga tahun setelah menikah, Nabi SAW meninggal dunia, dan akhirnya meninggal 5 tahun kemudian, tahun 16 A.H. Waktu itu, Umar bin Khatab yang menjadi Iman sholat Jenazahnya, dan kemudian dimakamkan di Al-Baqi.
Kalau sudah tahu begini dan kalau memang dikatakan mau mengikuti Sunnah Nabi Muhammad SAW, kira-kira masih minat dan berani nggak ya kaum Adam untuk ber-istri lebih dari 1?
(sumber: anwary-islam.com)
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Saturday, September 30, 2006
EVERYONE MUST BE IN UNITY AGAINST TERROR
The world has been living side by side with terror for hundreds of years. Even though actions may differ from country to country, all terrorist organizations aim at defenseless civilians and send their messages by way of these people.In the terrorist attack in Oklahoma in the USA 167 people were savagely slaughtered, 19 of them children. A fanatical Jew who opened a hail of fire on Muslims praying in a mosque in Palestine caused the deaths of 29 people. Thousands of people have lost their lives in attacks against Muslims in India over the years.
Terrorist attacks both great and small have for years been perpetrated in France, Spain, the Philippines, Japan and Ireland.
One could go on. However, the entire world came face to face with terror in 2001. In the wake of the attacks against two major cities in the USA which led to the deaths and injuries of thousands of people, the concept of “terrorism” began to be debated once again. That was because that attack had been carried out at an unexpected time, against a country regarded as the world’s only superpower, and in a totally unforeseen manner. The attack created an air of fear and panic all over the world, especially in America.
Following the attacks, the USA embarked on a major fight against terror. Many countries have lined up alongside America in this struggle, and lent their support to it. The series of bombings in Istanbul, just when it was thought that the forces of terror had been brought under control, again reminded people of terrorism’s dark face: first synagogues, then the British Consulate, then the HSBC General Directorate building …
The Saturday prayer, which had been performed for centuries, was interrupted by the bombs exploded on November 15th. Twenty-four people were killed in the explosions at the Neva Shalom synagogue at Beyoglu Kuledibi and the Beth Israel synagogue at Sisli, and 300 were injured. Dozens of more people lost their lives in the explosions at the British Consulate and the HSBC building, and hundreds were injured. Images similar to those which followed the September 11 attacks began appearing on our television screens. Ruined buildings, people fleeing in panic, burned out busses, corpses lying in the streets …
The point we wish to emphasize in this article is the Islamic perspective on terror attacks and the killing of the innocent. All forms of terrorist attack are roundly condemned in Islam. According to the Qur'an, it is a great sin to kill an innocent person, and anyone who does so will suffer great torment in the Hereafter:
… If someone kills another person—unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth—it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind. Our Messengers came to them with Clear Signs, but even after that, many of them committed outrages in the earth. (Qur’an, 5:32)
This verse equals the killing of one innocent to slaughtering all of humanity! Another verse expresses the importance that the faithful attach to life:
Those who do not appeal to any other deity besides God [alone]; nor kill any soul whom God has forbidden [them to] except with the right to do so; nor fornicate. Anyone who does so will incur a penalty. (Qur’an, 25:68)
In yet another verse, God issues the following commandment:
Say: "Come, and I will recite to you what your Lord has forbidden for you": that you do not associate anything with Him; that you are good to your parents; that you do not kill your children because of poverty—We will provide for you and them; that you do not approach indecency—outward or inward; that you do not kill any person God has made inviolate—except with the right to do so. That is what He instructs you to do, so that hopefully, you will use your intellect. (Qur’an, 6:151)
Any Muslim who believes in God with a sincere heart, who scrupulously abides by His verses and fears suffering in the Hereafter, will avoid harming even one other person. He knows that the Lord of Infinite Justice will suitably reward him for all his deeds. In one of the hadiths, our Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) listed the kinds of people who are not pleasing to God:
"Those who act cruelly and unjustly in the sacred lands, those who yearn for the ways of the ignorant, and those who wrongly shed human blood." (Sahih Bukhari Hadith)
Another element we wish to concentrate on is the attack on devout Turkish Jews worshipping in their synagogues. Churches, synagogues and mosques are houses for the worship of God. It is a terrible crime in the sight of God to slaughter innocent people as they worship in their churches, synagogues or mosques. These are houses where the name of God is remembered, praised and recited. In the Qur’an, , God reveals that:
… God guides to His Light whoever He wills and God makes metaphors for mankind and God has knowledge of all things. In houses which God has permitted to be built and in which His name is remembered, there are men who proclaim His glory morning and evening. (Qur’an, 24:35-36)
The people who go to those places are devout, prayerful people. All houses where the name of God is remembered are sacred in the eyes of Islam. Visitors to these houses may be Jews, Christians or Muslims. The important thing is that each one is a devout believer in God. A Muslim must respect and protect the holy places where the People of the Book worship God, and protect them. For Muslims, these places are precious because in these places, people, whether Jews or Christians, remember God. In the Qur'an, the places of worship of the People of the Book, ie. monasteries, churches and synagogues, are mentioned as places of worship protected by God.
…[I]f God had not driven some people back by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where God's name is mentioned much, would have been pulled down and destroyed. God will certainly help those who help Him—God is All-Strong, Almighty. (Qur'an, 22:40)
As a manifestation of his loyalty to God's commands, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was most careful not to destroy the holy places of the People of the Book. Such destruction means, in the first place, opposing God's commands. This aside, it means preventing people who have faith in God worshipping Him. Indeed, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) promised the Christians, who were the other party to a peace agreement he made, that their churches would not be destroyed and that they would never be harmed. The tax (Jizya) agreements he made with Christians also guaranteed the safety of churches.
The first agreement made after the death of the Prophet (pbuh) that guaranteed the protection of the temples was a tax agreement Khalid bin al-Waleed signed with the leader of the city of Anat. Ibn Ishaq stated that those agreements made by Khalid bin al-Waleed were also approved by Abu Bakr and the three caliphs following him. (1) This aside, Abu Bakr offered the same guarantees that had been offered to the people of Najran by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
The Islamic societies that abided by Islamic morality after the death of the Prophet (pbuh) also paid special attention to this issue. Muslim leaders who adhered to the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) respected the places of worship of non-Muslims in conquered countries and showed great tolerance to the clergy.
Terror Will Disappear When People Come to Live by the Moral Values of Islam
In the Qur'an (32:9), God reveals that He has breathed His Spirit into man, His creation, and that man is His representative on Earth (Qur'an, 6:165). One of the most important differences between man and the animals is that man was created with both earthly desires and with a conscience. Every person possesses desires that incite him to evil, along with a conscience that inspires him to avoid it. Alongside such pleasing attributes inspired by that conscience—love, sacrifice, compassion, humility, affection, honesty, loyalty and kindness—he also possesses destructive and undesirable tendencies, stemming from his earthly desires. Thanks to his conscience, however, the believer can distinguish between right and wrong and opt for what is morally right. Strong belief in and fear of God, faith in the Hereafter, powerful fear of the endless torments of Hell and a yearning for Paradise all keep the temptations of his earthly desires at bay. Therefore, he always behaves well towards people, is forgiving, responds to wickedness with good, assists those in need, and shows compassion, love, affection and tolerance.
Terrorists, on the other hand, listen to their earthly desire for violence instead of their consciences, and can easily turn to all forms of wickedness. They become loveless, aggressive people who easily hurt others without the slightest pang of conscience. Having no fear of God, they do not know the morality of religion, nor do they practice it. Nothing can stop them from committing crimes.
In restraining its citizens, society's prevailing rules can go only so far. Thanks to its law enforcement units, the state may be able to partially protect streets and public spaces, and thanks to a powerful system of justice may be able to take necessary means to ensure public order and ensure that the crime rate drops. But since it's impossible to keep watch on every individual, 24 hours a day, it's essential that peoples' consciences enter the equation at some stage. Someone who doesn't heed the voice of his conscience can easily turn to crime when on his own, or surrounded by people of like mind. That being the case, a model of society emerges which is composed of individuals who lie when necessary, have no hesitation about making unjust profits, and feel no unease about oppressing the weak. It is clear that physical precautions and measures will bear no fruit in a society which has no fear of God and which has lost its spiritual values. Religious moral values, on the other hand, command a person to refrain from evil, even if he is all alone, even if nobody will punish him for his evil deeds. It is evident that a person who knows that he will be called to account in the presence of God for his every deed, his every decision and his every word, and that he will be suitably rewarded for these in the eternal life of the Hereafter, will scrupulously avoid committing evil.
Terrorist organizations can't possibly have any place in a society whose people avoid evil of their own free will. Where religion's morality prevails, problems that give rise to organizations supporting the use of violence will disappear naturally. If the whole society possesses superior virtues like honesty, sacrifice, love and justice, there can be no place for such things as poverty, unequal distribution of income, injustice, the oppression of the weak, or limitations on freedoms. On the contrary, a social order will emerge that meets the wants of the needy; where the wealthy protect the poor and the strong, the weak; where everyone can enjoy the very best health care, education, and transport systems. There, tolerance and understanding will dominate the relationships between different ethnic groups, religions and cultures.
For these reasons, proper morality is the key to solving so many social problems. The source of that key, in turn, is the Qur'an, which God has revealed as a guide for mankind.
It must not be forgotten that unless necessary measures are taken, unless deep-rooted solutions are brought in, the 21st century will continue to be a time of terror and violence, just as the 20th was before it. The homes of innocent people will be bombed, and women and children will be slaughtered. The ideological fight against terrorism, therefore, must be started with great urgency, to include very great numbers of people. This fight will be fought on the level of ideas—between people who believe in God, who are loving, forgiving, compassionate and in full possession of their conscience; and those who draw their strength from ignorance and violence. In one verse, our Lord reveals, " Why were there not people with good sense among the generations of those who came before you, who forbade corruption in the earth…" (Qur’an, 11:116). Believers should possess the virtue that God describes in that verse. While terrorists hope to achieve their aims by violence, believers know that true success can be achieved only by clinging tightly to the religion of God, and acting accordingly. Jews, Christians, and Muslims will join together in that struggle, in a spirit of respect for all beliefs and ideas and, by the will of God, enjoy definitive success. This is God’s promise to all His believing servants, which will definitely come true.
At this point, a great responsibility falls on all true believers, no matter what their religion. Jews must not ignore Old Testament statements calling mankind to peace and tolerance, and they must call on all other Jews to oppose terrorism . So should Christians call on all other Christians, taking as their guide the morality most pleasing to God. One should not forget that terrorism stems from wrong ideas and the basic struggle against terrorism should be on the level of ideas. Believers must explain that these ideas are wrong, and that no idea can prevail by means of violence, oppression and cruelty; and despotism can never bring about beauty.
Terrorist ideology is built on sand. Its foundations can easily be swept away by mobilizing a proper education campaign. Sincere believers in all parts of the world can help end the ignorance that breeds terrorism by searching for solutions, writing books and articles, promoting educational activities and disseminating their own cultural heritage. The prevalence of tolerance, peace and security on the Earth, as commanded by God, will make terrorism disappear into the pages of history forever. Adopting a defeatist, pessimistic attitude in the face of terror is unacceptable. Our hope is that this suffering will not be repeated, and that all measures will be adopted to that end.
May God have mercy on those who died in those hateful attacks, and may He heal the injured. Our sincere condolences to all mankind. (For detailed information, please see Islam Denounces Terrorism and Only Love Can Defeat Terrorism by Harun Yahya)
NOTES:
(1) Levent Ozturk, Asr-i Saadetten Hacli Seferlerine Kadar Islam Toplumunda Hıristiyanlar (Christians in the Islamic Society From the Blessed Period to the Crusades), Iz Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1998, p. 111.
ARticle taken from www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com
Terrorist attacks both great and small have for years been perpetrated in France, Spain, the Philippines, Japan and Ireland.
One could go on. However, the entire world came face to face with terror in 2001. In the wake of the attacks against two major cities in the USA which led to the deaths and injuries of thousands of people, the concept of “terrorism” began to be debated once again. That was because that attack had been carried out at an unexpected time, against a country regarded as the world’s only superpower, and in a totally unforeseen manner. The attack created an air of fear and panic all over the world, especially in America.
Following the attacks, the USA embarked on a major fight against terror. Many countries have lined up alongside America in this struggle, and lent their support to it. The series of bombings in Istanbul, just when it was thought that the forces of terror had been brought under control, again reminded people of terrorism’s dark face: first synagogues, then the British Consulate, then the HSBC General Directorate building …
The Saturday prayer, which had been performed for centuries, was interrupted by the bombs exploded on November 15th. Twenty-four people were killed in the explosions at the Neva Shalom synagogue at Beyoglu Kuledibi and the Beth Israel synagogue at Sisli, and 300 were injured. Dozens of more people lost their lives in the explosions at the British Consulate and the HSBC building, and hundreds were injured. Images similar to those which followed the September 11 attacks began appearing on our television screens. Ruined buildings, people fleeing in panic, burned out busses, corpses lying in the streets …
The point we wish to emphasize in this article is the Islamic perspective on terror attacks and the killing of the innocent. All forms of terrorist attack are roundly condemned in Islam. According to the Qur'an, it is a great sin to kill an innocent person, and anyone who does so will suffer great torment in the Hereafter:
… If someone kills another person—unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth—it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind. Our Messengers came to them with Clear Signs, but even after that, many of them committed outrages in the earth. (Qur’an, 5:32)
This verse equals the killing of one innocent to slaughtering all of humanity! Another verse expresses the importance that the faithful attach to life:
Those who do not appeal to any other deity besides God [alone]; nor kill any soul whom God has forbidden [them to] except with the right to do so; nor fornicate. Anyone who does so will incur a penalty. (Qur’an, 25:68)
In yet another verse, God issues the following commandment:
Say: "Come, and I will recite to you what your Lord has forbidden for you": that you do not associate anything with Him; that you are good to your parents; that you do not kill your children because of poverty—We will provide for you and them; that you do not approach indecency—outward or inward; that you do not kill any person God has made inviolate—except with the right to do so. That is what He instructs you to do, so that hopefully, you will use your intellect. (Qur’an, 6:151)
Any Muslim who believes in God with a sincere heart, who scrupulously abides by His verses and fears suffering in the Hereafter, will avoid harming even one other person. He knows that the Lord of Infinite Justice will suitably reward him for all his deeds. In one of the hadiths, our Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) listed the kinds of people who are not pleasing to God:
"Those who act cruelly and unjustly in the sacred lands, those who yearn for the ways of the ignorant, and those who wrongly shed human blood." (Sahih Bukhari Hadith)
Another element we wish to concentrate on is the attack on devout Turkish Jews worshipping in their synagogues. Churches, synagogues and mosques are houses for the worship of God. It is a terrible crime in the sight of God to slaughter innocent people as they worship in their churches, synagogues or mosques. These are houses where the name of God is remembered, praised and recited. In the Qur’an, , God reveals that:
… God guides to His Light whoever He wills and God makes metaphors for mankind and God has knowledge of all things. In houses which God has permitted to be built and in which His name is remembered, there are men who proclaim His glory morning and evening. (Qur’an, 24:35-36)
The people who go to those places are devout, prayerful people. All houses where the name of God is remembered are sacred in the eyes of Islam. Visitors to these houses may be Jews, Christians or Muslims. The important thing is that each one is a devout believer in God. A Muslim must respect and protect the holy places where the People of the Book worship God, and protect them. For Muslims, these places are precious because in these places, people, whether Jews or Christians, remember God. In the Qur'an, the places of worship of the People of the Book, ie. monasteries, churches and synagogues, are mentioned as places of worship protected by God.
…[I]f God had not driven some people back by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where God's name is mentioned much, would have been pulled down and destroyed. God will certainly help those who help Him—God is All-Strong, Almighty. (Qur'an, 22:40)
As a manifestation of his loyalty to God's commands, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was most careful not to destroy the holy places of the People of the Book. Such destruction means, in the first place, opposing God's commands. This aside, it means preventing people who have faith in God worshipping Him. Indeed, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) promised the Christians, who were the other party to a peace agreement he made, that their churches would not be destroyed and that they would never be harmed. The tax (Jizya) agreements he made with Christians also guaranteed the safety of churches.
The first agreement made after the death of the Prophet (pbuh) that guaranteed the protection of the temples was a tax agreement Khalid bin al-Waleed signed with the leader of the city of Anat. Ibn Ishaq stated that those agreements made by Khalid bin al-Waleed were also approved by Abu Bakr and the three caliphs following him. (1) This aside, Abu Bakr offered the same guarantees that had been offered to the people of Najran by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
The Islamic societies that abided by Islamic morality after the death of the Prophet (pbuh) also paid special attention to this issue. Muslim leaders who adhered to the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) respected the places of worship of non-Muslims in conquered countries and showed great tolerance to the clergy.
Terror Will Disappear When People Come to Live by the Moral Values of Islam
In the Qur'an (32:9), God reveals that He has breathed His Spirit into man, His creation, and that man is His representative on Earth (Qur'an, 6:165). One of the most important differences between man and the animals is that man was created with both earthly desires and with a conscience. Every person possesses desires that incite him to evil, along with a conscience that inspires him to avoid it. Alongside such pleasing attributes inspired by that conscience—love, sacrifice, compassion, humility, affection, honesty, loyalty and kindness—he also possesses destructive and undesirable tendencies, stemming from his earthly desires. Thanks to his conscience, however, the believer can distinguish between right and wrong and opt for what is morally right. Strong belief in and fear of God, faith in the Hereafter, powerful fear of the endless torments of Hell and a yearning for Paradise all keep the temptations of his earthly desires at bay. Therefore, he always behaves well towards people, is forgiving, responds to wickedness with good, assists those in need, and shows compassion, love, affection and tolerance.
Terrorists, on the other hand, listen to their earthly desire for violence instead of their consciences, and can easily turn to all forms of wickedness. They become loveless, aggressive people who easily hurt others without the slightest pang of conscience. Having no fear of God, they do not know the morality of religion, nor do they practice it. Nothing can stop them from committing crimes.
In restraining its citizens, society's prevailing rules can go only so far. Thanks to its law enforcement units, the state may be able to partially protect streets and public spaces, and thanks to a powerful system of justice may be able to take necessary means to ensure public order and ensure that the crime rate drops. But since it's impossible to keep watch on every individual, 24 hours a day, it's essential that peoples' consciences enter the equation at some stage. Someone who doesn't heed the voice of his conscience can easily turn to crime when on his own, or surrounded by people of like mind. That being the case, a model of society emerges which is composed of individuals who lie when necessary, have no hesitation about making unjust profits, and feel no unease about oppressing the weak. It is clear that physical precautions and measures will bear no fruit in a society which has no fear of God and which has lost its spiritual values. Religious moral values, on the other hand, command a person to refrain from evil, even if he is all alone, even if nobody will punish him for his evil deeds. It is evident that a person who knows that he will be called to account in the presence of God for his every deed, his every decision and his every word, and that he will be suitably rewarded for these in the eternal life of the Hereafter, will scrupulously avoid committing evil.
Terrorist organizations can't possibly have any place in a society whose people avoid evil of their own free will. Where religion's morality prevails, problems that give rise to organizations supporting the use of violence will disappear naturally. If the whole society possesses superior virtues like honesty, sacrifice, love and justice, there can be no place for such things as poverty, unequal distribution of income, injustice, the oppression of the weak, or limitations on freedoms. On the contrary, a social order will emerge that meets the wants of the needy; where the wealthy protect the poor and the strong, the weak; where everyone can enjoy the very best health care, education, and transport systems. There, tolerance and understanding will dominate the relationships between different ethnic groups, religions and cultures.
For these reasons, proper morality is the key to solving so many social problems. The source of that key, in turn, is the Qur'an, which God has revealed as a guide for mankind.
It must not be forgotten that unless necessary measures are taken, unless deep-rooted solutions are brought in, the 21st century will continue to be a time of terror and violence, just as the 20th was before it. The homes of innocent people will be bombed, and women and children will be slaughtered. The ideological fight against terrorism, therefore, must be started with great urgency, to include very great numbers of people. This fight will be fought on the level of ideas—between people who believe in God, who are loving, forgiving, compassionate and in full possession of their conscience; and those who draw their strength from ignorance and violence. In one verse, our Lord reveals, " Why were there not people with good sense among the generations of those who came before you, who forbade corruption in the earth…" (Qur’an, 11:116). Believers should possess the virtue that God describes in that verse. While terrorists hope to achieve their aims by violence, believers know that true success can be achieved only by clinging tightly to the religion of God, and acting accordingly. Jews, Christians, and Muslims will join together in that struggle, in a spirit of respect for all beliefs and ideas and, by the will of God, enjoy definitive success. This is God’s promise to all His believing servants, which will definitely come true.
At this point, a great responsibility falls on all true believers, no matter what their religion. Jews must not ignore Old Testament statements calling mankind to peace and tolerance, and they must call on all other Jews to oppose terrorism . So should Christians call on all other Christians, taking as their guide the morality most pleasing to God. One should not forget that terrorism stems from wrong ideas and the basic struggle against terrorism should be on the level of ideas. Believers must explain that these ideas are wrong, and that no idea can prevail by means of violence, oppression and cruelty; and despotism can never bring about beauty.
Terrorist ideology is built on sand. Its foundations can easily be swept away by mobilizing a proper education campaign. Sincere believers in all parts of the world can help end the ignorance that breeds terrorism by searching for solutions, writing books and articles, promoting educational activities and disseminating their own cultural heritage. The prevalence of tolerance, peace and security on the Earth, as commanded by God, will make terrorism disappear into the pages of history forever. Adopting a defeatist, pessimistic attitude in the face of terror is unacceptable. Our hope is that this suffering will not be repeated, and that all measures will be adopted to that end.
May God have mercy on those who died in those hateful attacks, and may He heal the injured. Our sincere condolences to all mankind. (For detailed information, please see Islam Denounces Terrorism and Only Love Can Defeat Terrorism by Harun Yahya)
NOTES:
(1) Levent Ozturk, Asr-i Saadetten Hacli Seferlerine Kadar Islam Toplumunda Hıristiyanlar (Christians in the Islamic Society From the Blessed Period to the Crusades), Iz Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1998, p. 111.
ARticle taken from www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com
Monday, September 25, 2006
Learning from a girl named Nazira
Learning from a girl named Nazira
By Sami Moubayed
DAMASCUS - Leaders and masses of the Muslim and Christian world should take a deep breath. It is unacceptable that so much controversy, bad feelings, insult and violence should erupt after the speech of Pope Benedict XVI given at the University of Regensburg on September 12 in Germany.
The pope infuriated the Muslim world by quoting the Byzantine
Emperor Manuel II telling a Persian intellectual in 1391: "Show me just what Mohammed [the Prophet of Islam] brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he has preached." The pope did not say that he agreed with these words.
Nevertheless the damage was done and, regardless of intentions, violence and anti-Christian feeling immediately soared throughout the Muslim world. One phrase from Benedict's lecture that was completely ignored by the mass media was: "The emperor must have known that Sura 2:256 [of the Koran] reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.'" True, that is what Muslims believe, and Benedict XVI did not fail to point to it.
To give him the benefit of the doubt, one can say that he wanted to show how just Islam was during its birth, as opposed to the Islamic fanatics who have distorted Islam and waged senseless war in its name. By quoting the emperor, he might have wanted to show how ignorant the leaders of Byzantium were of the flourishing Muslim faith in Arabia. But that's certainly not how Muslims explained his remarks.
The pope has since apologized twice. On Sunday, he said: "At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. There in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought."
But regardless of intentions and in light of his apology, let us stop for a moment to think objectively of all that is happening and being said in the Muslim and Christian worlds. The pope was quoting a Byzantine emperor speaking to an unnamed Persian intellectual, taken from an obscure document, 615 years ago, in 1391. It is unbelievable that we still have the energy to dig up these ancient arguments, use them to arouse emotions, riot like madmen, and foster hatred in both communities. It is equally repugnant that the pope would make such a miscalculated remark, knowing perfectly well how much disgust it would cause in Muslim communities around the world.
Equally guilty, however, are the Muslim leaders who responded to his remarks with church attacks and violent rallies around the world. God created the human mind to debate, study, analyze and explain. Isn't it the duty of Muslims, after all, to educate non-Muslims on the true nature of the religion of Mohammed? If the pope was misinformed, then Muslims are responsible for not explaining the true nature of their faith to the world, or marketing its true values. They are to blame for letting terrorists like Osama bin Laden hijack Islam and ruin its name.
This same pope, struggling to fit into the oversized shoes of his predecessor John Paul II, had condemned the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed earlier in the year, saying: "In the international context we are living at present, the Catholic Church continues convinced that, to foster peace and understanding between people and men, it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected." He added, "Believers should be the object of provocations that wound their lives and religious sentiments." He also said, "For believers, as for all people of goodwill, the only path that can lead to peace and fraternity is respect for the convictions and religious practices of others."
He has also called on Christians "to open their arms and hearts" to Muslim immigrants and to dialogue on religious issues. He added that the Church's "inter-religious dialogue is a part of its commitment to the service of humanity in the modern world". He described this dialogue as "important and delicate". The pope has called for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and on July 14, the Vatican condemned Israel's attack on Lebanon.
Oriana Fallaci: No apology
For all of the reasons mentioned above, I would like to believe that the pope's insult was an unintentional mistake that will not be repeated. And for this reason, I want to forgive him. More dangerous than what the pope is saying, however, is the eulogy being made in the Western press to Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who died last week in Florence.
A rude woman by all accounts, Fallaci once interviewed ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini shortly after the Islamic Revolution in Iran in February 1979. She was annoyed by him forcing her to cover her head with a chador, as is common in Islamic tradition when meeting with a Muslim cleric. Provoking him with sensitive questions about politics and religion, she then famously asked: "How do you swim in a chador?" An infuriated Khomeini snapped back: "Our customs are none of your business. If you do not like Islamic dress you are not obliged to wear it." She said: "That's very kind of you, Imam. And since you said so, I am going to take off this stupid, medieval rag right now."
The pope apologized for his mistake. He said he had not intended to offend the Muslims. Fallaci did not apologize. She died happy that she had been offending Muslims and insulting them for 30 years. And in bidding her farewell, the Western world is hailing her as a symbol of freedom of speech.
Fallaci wrote several books about Islam after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Among other things, she wrote that when occupying the Abbey of Montecassino in Italy in AD 883, "the Muslims amused themselves by sacrificing each night the virginity of a nun. Do you know where? On the altar of a cathedral." Her quotes are not footnoted, casting doubt on her seriousness in documentation. When the Muslims took Constantinople in 1453, she added, they "decapitated even newborns and extinguished candles in their little heads". She also wrote of "the dream that the sons of Allah have been nurturing for years, the dream of blowing up Giotto's Tower or the Tower of Pisa or the cupola of St Peter's or the Eiffel Tower or Westminster Abbey".
When terrorists using the name of Islam strike the heart of New York, or detonate bombs in the London Underground, this makes it more difficult to defend the Muslims against Fallaci, since she attributes these acts to all Muslims, and not the few who are fanatics. All her remarks, which have resurfaced in the past week on websites and editorials, show a grand hatred for Muslims.
One of the famous ones was: "Islamic racism that is the hatred of the infidel dogs reigns supreme and is never put on trial, never punished." She added that Muslims think "that biology is a shameless science because it is occupied with the human body and sex". Fallaci also said: "Muslims have killed 6,000 people to the glory of the Koran, in obedience to its verses." She said Muslims placed Jesus of Nazareth, whom she calls "our Jesus", in an Islamic paradise "where he drinks like a drunkard, screws like a sexual maniac". She said Muslims have "urinated on their monuments [in Italy] or soil the sacristies of their churches or toss their crucifixes out the window of a hospital".
Fallaci famously concluded: "Despite the massacres through which the sons of Allah have bloodied us and bloodied themselves for over 30 years, the war that Islam has declared against the West is a cultural war. They kill us in order to bend us, to intimidate us. Their goal is not to fill cemeteries, not to destroy skyscrapers. It is to destroy our soul, our ideas, our feelings and our dreams."
The remarks of Fallaci and the statements of the pope raise a million questions on who started this war with the Muslims. Was it the Muslims who declared war on the West, or the other way around? And it raises other questions on where the lines of free speech fall in the Western world. If we tolerate Benedict XVI, do we accept the rude and insulting remarks of Fallaci as balanced journalism? As far as the Muslim and Arab worlds are concerned, the answer to Fallaci is a certain "no". The status of the pope is debatable and up to each Muslim to decide, taking into account that he has apologized. And if we were to accept the Danish cartoons against the Prophet Mohammed, topped with Fallaci and Benedict XVI - or should we say Manuel II - then why does freedom of speech change from one subject to another?
The unthinkable thoughts of David Irving
I cite the example of David Irving, the famous British historian who is currently in jail for his views on the Holocaust. His 1977 book Hitler's War was the first of his two-part biography of Adolf Hitler. In it he described World War II from Hitler's point of view - a taboo throughout most of the Western world. Irving showed that Hitler was a rational, intelligent leader and human being whose main motivation was to increase the prosperity of Germany. It was British prime minister Winston Churchill who escalated the war after coming to power, stated Irving, not Hitler.
Irving did not deny the Holocaust but said Hitler did not order it or know of it, enraging the Jewish community around the world. Irving attributed the Holocaust to Hitler's right-hand man Heinrich Himmler.
Irving controversially remarked: "There were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. It makes no sense to transport people from Amsterdam, Vienna, and Brussels 500 kilometers to Auschwitz simply to liquidate them [when] it can be done 8 kilometers from the city where they live." The historian challenged any person to come up with an authentic written order by Hitler for the Holocaust.
Irving then wrote The War Path in 1978, with similar views on World War II. In 1987 he wrote a very ugly biography of Churchill, showing him as an alcoholic who sold out the British Empire and blamed him for "turning Britain against its natural ally, Germany".
By the 1980s, Irving was banned from entering Austria. In the 1990s he was banned from entering Germany as well. The same applied to South Africa, Australia, and Canada in 1992. In September 2004, New Zealand declared that he would not be allowed to enter the country to give lectures at the National Press Club. He defied the ban and tried to go but was arrested in Austria. In court he tried to change discourse, but Austrian authorities did not believe him and at the time of writing he still languishes in jail. He had tried to revoke ideas he had promoted for years by saying: "The Nazis did murder millions of Jews. I made a mistake by saying there were no gas chambers, I am absolutely without doubt that the Holocaust took place. I apologize for those few I might have offended."
Learning from Syrian history
It is a funny world with funny double standards indeed. To make things easier for everybody - especially the oversensitive millions in all faiths - it is safe to say that critical issues such as the Holocaust become red lines that should not be crossed. In saying that, we can assume that Fallaci, Benedict and Irving all committed mistakes.
Offending others for the sake of free speech should not be tolerated. Yes, the Holocaust did happen, and it would be a crime to say that it did not. But my own word of advice to the Muslim community is to think big and avoid the trappings of critical articles, comments here and there, or cartoons. Islam is much greater than these small, really small, issues.
Seventy years ago, in April 1928, a 20-year-old girl named Nazira Zayn al-Din wrote a book called Unveiling and Veiling, saying she had read, understood and interpreted the Holy Koran. Therefore, she said, she had the authority and analytical skills to challenge the teachings of Islam's clerics, men who were far older and wiser than she. Her interpretation of Islam, she boldly said, was that the veil was un-Islamic. If a woman was forced to wear the veil by her father, husband or brother, Zayn al-Din argued, then she should take him to court. Other ideas presented by her were that men and woman should mix socially because this develops moral progress, and that both sexes should be educated in the same classrooms. Men and women, she said, should equally be able to hold public office and vote in government elections.
They must be free to study the Koran themselves, and it should not be dictated on them by an oppressive older generation of clerics, she said. Finally, Zayn al-Din compared the "veiled" Muslim world to the "unveiled" one, saying the unveiled one was better because reason reigned, rather than religion.
Her book caused a thunderstorm in Syria and Lebanon. It was the most outrageous assault on traditional Islam, coming from Zayn al-Din, who was a Druze. The book went into a second edition within two months, and was translated into several languages. Great men from Islam, including the muftis of Beirut and Damascus, wrote against her, arguing that she did not have the authority to speak on Islam and dismiss the veil as un-Islamic. Nobody, however, accused her of treason or blasphemy. They accused her of bad vision resulting from bad Islamic education.
Some clerics banned her book. Some, however, such as the Syrian scholar Mohammad Kurd Ali, actually embraced it, buying 20 copies for the Arab Language Assembly and writing a favorable review.
But despite the uproar, which lasted for two years, the Syrians and the Muslim establishments did not let the issue get out of hand. They did not lead street demonstrations for weeks, as if the Muslim world had no other concern than Nazira Zayn al-Din. Zayn al-Din was still free to roam the streets of Syria and Lebanon, without being harassed or killed by those who hated her views. The leaders of Islam in 1927-30 were by far too busy to occupy themselves, and the Muslim community at large, with the ideas of a 20-year-old girl. They had to attend to their mosques, run their charity organizations, answer theological questions, cater to Muslim education, lead political issues, and fight the French.
Why, then, have the leaders of today's world abandoned every problem in the Muslim world to concentrate on the silly cartoons published in a Danish newspaper? Or to inject life into the statements of Manuel II? Yes, the cartoons were very wrong and very insulting, and yes, the pope committed a grand error by repeating what the Byzantine emperor had said. But as well, Muslims should have shown solidarity on other more important issues, such as Israel's digging beneath the al-Aqsa Mosque, invading Beirut in 1982, bombing Ramallah, massacring innocents in Jenin and Rafah, and building the Separation Barrier. More recently they should have united on the destruction of Lebanon.
The death of Palestinians is certainly more important to Muslims (or should be) than what an obscure Danish newspaper publishes, or the views of an until-now-unknown script by a forgotten Byzantine emperor. I am not saying that one should ignore the cartoons and the pope, but rather that one should only give them the attention they deserve, with no exaggerations, and concentrate on more concrete issues relating to the Arab and Muslim worlds.
The Prophet is one of the greatest names in history. He is too great to be affected by these ugly cartoons or the remarks of the pope. To quote Lawrence of Arabia, it is time for us to stop acting like a small people, a silly people, and start living up to our duties before history and mankind. After all, we have not contributed anything to human progress in the past 500 years. We should write and promote our history, then concentrate on science, arts, literature, and freedom of the mind. We should learn to talk to, rather than demonstrate against, those who think and act differently, and those who wrong us.
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.
By Sami Moubayed
DAMASCUS - Leaders and masses of the Muslim and Christian world should take a deep breath. It is unacceptable that so much controversy, bad feelings, insult and violence should erupt after the speech of Pope Benedict XVI given at the University of Regensburg on September 12 in Germany.
The pope infuriated the Muslim world by quoting the Byzantine
Emperor Manuel II telling a Persian intellectual in 1391: "Show me just what Mohammed [the Prophet of Islam] brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he has preached." The pope did not say that he agreed with these words.
Nevertheless the damage was done and, regardless of intentions, violence and anti-Christian feeling immediately soared throughout the Muslim world. One phrase from Benedict's lecture that was completely ignored by the mass media was: "The emperor must have known that Sura 2:256 [of the Koran] reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.'" True, that is what Muslims believe, and Benedict XVI did not fail to point to it.
To give him the benefit of the doubt, one can say that he wanted to show how just Islam was during its birth, as opposed to the Islamic fanatics who have distorted Islam and waged senseless war in its name. By quoting the emperor, he might have wanted to show how ignorant the leaders of Byzantium were of the flourishing Muslim faith in Arabia. But that's certainly not how Muslims explained his remarks.
The pope has since apologized twice. On Sunday, he said: "At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. There in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought."
But regardless of intentions and in light of his apology, let us stop for a moment to think objectively of all that is happening and being said in the Muslim and Christian worlds. The pope was quoting a Byzantine emperor speaking to an unnamed Persian intellectual, taken from an obscure document, 615 years ago, in 1391. It is unbelievable that we still have the energy to dig up these ancient arguments, use them to arouse emotions, riot like madmen, and foster hatred in both communities. It is equally repugnant that the pope would make such a miscalculated remark, knowing perfectly well how much disgust it would cause in Muslim communities around the world.
Equally guilty, however, are the Muslim leaders who responded to his remarks with church attacks and violent rallies around the world. God created the human mind to debate, study, analyze and explain. Isn't it the duty of Muslims, after all, to educate non-Muslims on the true nature of the religion of Mohammed? If the pope was misinformed, then Muslims are responsible for not explaining the true nature of their faith to the world, or marketing its true values. They are to blame for letting terrorists like Osama bin Laden hijack Islam and ruin its name.
This same pope, struggling to fit into the oversized shoes of his predecessor John Paul II, had condemned the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed earlier in the year, saying: "In the international context we are living at present, the Catholic Church continues convinced that, to foster peace and understanding between people and men, it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected." He added, "Believers should be the object of provocations that wound their lives and religious sentiments." He also said, "For believers, as for all people of goodwill, the only path that can lead to peace and fraternity is respect for the convictions and religious practices of others."
He has also called on Christians "to open their arms and hearts" to Muslim immigrants and to dialogue on religious issues. He added that the Church's "inter-religious dialogue is a part of its commitment to the service of humanity in the modern world". He described this dialogue as "important and delicate". The pope has called for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and on July 14, the Vatican condemned Israel's attack on Lebanon.
Oriana Fallaci: No apology
For all of the reasons mentioned above, I would like to believe that the pope's insult was an unintentional mistake that will not be repeated. And for this reason, I want to forgive him. More dangerous than what the pope is saying, however, is the eulogy being made in the Western press to Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who died last week in Florence.
A rude woman by all accounts, Fallaci once interviewed ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini shortly after the Islamic Revolution in Iran in February 1979. She was annoyed by him forcing her to cover her head with a chador, as is common in Islamic tradition when meeting with a Muslim cleric. Provoking him with sensitive questions about politics and religion, she then famously asked: "How do you swim in a chador?" An infuriated Khomeini snapped back: "Our customs are none of your business. If you do not like Islamic dress you are not obliged to wear it." She said: "That's very kind of you, Imam. And since you said so, I am going to take off this stupid, medieval rag right now."
The pope apologized for his mistake. He said he had not intended to offend the Muslims. Fallaci did not apologize. She died happy that she had been offending Muslims and insulting them for 30 years. And in bidding her farewell, the Western world is hailing her as a symbol of freedom of speech.
Fallaci wrote several books about Islam after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Among other things, she wrote that when occupying the Abbey of Montecassino in Italy in AD 883, "the Muslims amused themselves by sacrificing each night the virginity of a nun. Do you know where? On the altar of a cathedral." Her quotes are not footnoted, casting doubt on her seriousness in documentation. When the Muslims took Constantinople in 1453, she added, they "decapitated even newborns and extinguished candles in their little heads". She also wrote of "the dream that the sons of Allah have been nurturing for years, the dream of blowing up Giotto's Tower or the Tower of Pisa or the cupola of St Peter's or the Eiffel Tower or Westminster Abbey".
When terrorists using the name of Islam strike the heart of New York, or detonate bombs in the London Underground, this makes it more difficult to defend the Muslims against Fallaci, since she attributes these acts to all Muslims, and not the few who are fanatics. All her remarks, which have resurfaced in the past week on websites and editorials, show a grand hatred for Muslims.
One of the famous ones was: "Islamic racism that is the hatred of the infidel dogs reigns supreme and is never put on trial, never punished." She added that Muslims think "that biology is a shameless science because it is occupied with the human body and sex". Fallaci also said: "Muslims have killed 6,000 people to the glory of the Koran, in obedience to its verses." She said Muslims placed Jesus of Nazareth, whom she calls "our Jesus", in an Islamic paradise "where he drinks like a drunkard, screws like a sexual maniac". She said Muslims have "urinated on their monuments [in Italy] or soil the sacristies of their churches or toss their crucifixes out the window of a hospital".
Fallaci famously concluded: "Despite the massacres through which the sons of Allah have bloodied us and bloodied themselves for over 30 years, the war that Islam has declared against the West is a cultural war. They kill us in order to bend us, to intimidate us. Their goal is not to fill cemeteries, not to destroy skyscrapers. It is to destroy our soul, our ideas, our feelings and our dreams."
The remarks of Fallaci and the statements of the pope raise a million questions on who started this war with the Muslims. Was it the Muslims who declared war on the West, or the other way around? And it raises other questions on where the lines of free speech fall in the Western world. If we tolerate Benedict XVI, do we accept the rude and insulting remarks of Fallaci as balanced journalism? As far as the Muslim and Arab worlds are concerned, the answer to Fallaci is a certain "no". The status of the pope is debatable and up to each Muslim to decide, taking into account that he has apologized. And if we were to accept the Danish cartoons against the Prophet Mohammed, topped with Fallaci and Benedict XVI - or should we say Manuel II - then why does freedom of speech change from one subject to another?
The unthinkable thoughts of David Irving
I cite the example of David Irving, the famous British historian who is currently in jail for his views on the Holocaust. His 1977 book Hitler's War was the first of his two-part biography of Adolf Hitler. In it he described World War II from Hitler's point of view - a taboo throughout most of the Western world. Irving showed that Hitler was a rational, intelligent leader and human being whose main motivation was to increase the prosperity of Germany. It was British prime minister Winston Churchill who escalated the war after coming to power, stated Irving, not Hitler.
Irving did not deny the Holocaust but said Hitler did not order it or know of it, enraging the Jewish community around the world. Irving attributed the Holocaust to Hitler's right-hand man Heinrich Himmler.
Irving controversially remarked: "There were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. It makes no sense to transport people from Amsterdam, Vienna, and Brussels 500 kilometers to Auschwitz simply to liquidate them [when] it can be done 8 kilometers from the city where they live." The historian challenged any person to come up with an authentic written order by Hitler for the Holocaust.
Irving then wrote The War Path in 1978, with similar views on World War II. In 1987 he wrote a very ugly biography of Churchill, showing him as an alcoholic who sold out the British Empire and blamed him for "turning Britain against its natural ally, Germany".
By the 1980s, Irving was banned from entering Austria. In the 1990s he was banned from entering Germany as well. The same applied to South Africa, Australia, and Canada in 1992. In September 2004, New Zealand declared that he would not be allowed to enter the country to give lectures at the National Press Club. He defied the ban and tried to go but was arrested in Austria. In court he tried to change discourse, but Austrian authorities did not believe him and at the time of writing he still languishes in jail. He had tried to revoke ideas he had promoted for years by saying: "The Nazis did murder millions of Jews. I made a mistake by saying there were no gas chambers, I am absolutely without doubt that the Holocaust took place. I apologize for those few I might have offended."
Learning from Syrian history
It is a funny world with funny double standards indeed. To make things easier for everybody - especially the oversensitive millions in all faiths - it is safe to say that critical issues such as the Holocaust become red lines that should not be crossed. In saying that, we can assume that Fallaci, Benedict and Irving all committed mistakes.
Offending others for the sake of free speech should not be tolerated. Yes, the Holocaust did happen, and it would be a crime to say that it did not. But my own word of advice to the Muslim community is to think big and avoid the trappings of critical articles, comments here and there, or cartoons. Islam is much greater than these small, really small, issues.
Seventy years ago, in April 1928, a 20-year-old girl named Nazira Zayn al-Din wrote a book called Unveiling and Veiling, saying she had read, understood and interpreted the Holy Koran. Therefore, she said, she had the authority and analytical skills to challenge the teachings of Islam's clerics, men who were far older and wiser than she. Her interpretation of Islam, she boldly said, was that the veil was un-Islamic. If a woman was forced to wear the veil by her father, husband or brother, Zayn al-Din argued, then she should take him to court. Other ideas presented by her were that men and woman should mix socially because this develops moral progress, and that both sexes should be educated in the same classrooms. Men and women, she said, should equally be able to hold public office and vote in government elections.
They must be free to study the Koran themselves, and it should not be dictated on them by an oppressive older generation of clerics, she said. Finally, Zayn al-Din compared the "veiled" Muslim world to the "unveiled" one, saying the unveiled one was better because reason reigned, rather than religion.
Her book caused a thunderstorm in Syria and Lebanon. It was the most outrageous assault on traditional Islam, coming from Zayn al-Din, who was a Druze. The book went into a second edition within two months, and was translated into several languages. Great men from Islam, including the muftis of Beirut and Damascus, wrote against her, arguing that she did not have the authority to speak on Islam and dismiss the veil as un-Islamic. Nobody, however, accused her of treason or blasphemy. They accused her of bad vision resulting from bad Islamic education.
Some clerics banned her book. Some, however, such as the Syrian scholar Mohammad Kurd Ali, actually embraced it, buying 20 copies for the Arab Language Assembly and writing a favorable review.
But despite the uproar, which lasted for two years, the Syrians and the Muslim establishments did not let the issue get out of hand. They did not lead street demonstrations for weeks, as if the Muslim world had no other concern than Nazira Zayn al-Din. Zayn al-Din was still free to roam the streets of Syria and Lebanon, without being harassed or killed by those who hated her views. The leaders of Islam in 1927-30 were by far too busy to occupy themselves, and the Muslim community at large, with the ideas of a 20-year-old girl. They had to attend to their mosques, run their charity organizations, answer theological questions, cater to Muslim education, lead political issues, and fight the French.
Why, then, have the leaders of today's world abandoned every problem in the Muslim world to concentrate on the silly cartoons published in a Danish newspaper? Or to inject life into the statements of Manuel II? Yes, the cartoons were very wrong and very insulting, and yes, the pope committed a grand error by repeating what the Byzantine emperor had said. But as well, Muslims should have shown solidarity on other more important issues, such as Israel's digging beneath the al-Aqsa Mosque, invading Beirut in 1982, bombing Ramallah, massacring innocents in Jenin and Rafah, and building the Separation Barrier. More recently they should have united on the destruction of Lebanon.
The death of Palestinians is certainly more important to Muslims (or should be) than what an obscure Danish newspaper publishes, or the views of an until-now-unknown script by a forgotten Byzantine emperor. I am not saying that one should ignore the cartoons and the pope, but rather that one should only give them the attention they deserve, with no exaggerations, and concentrate on more concrete issues relating to the Arab and Muslim worlds.
The Prophet is one of the greatest names in history. He is too great to be affected by these ugly cartoons or the remarks of the pope. To quote Lawrence of Arabia, it is time for us to stop acting like a small people, a silly people, and start living up to our duties before history and mankind. After all, we have not contributed anything to human progress in the past 500 years. We should write and promote our history, then concentrate on science, arts, literature, and freedom of the mind. We should learn to talk to, rather than demonstrate against, those who think and act differently, and those who wrong us.
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.
Monday, September 18, 2006
What Can We learn From India
Forwarded by Hermawan Susanto <hermawans@...> Date: Sep 18, 2005 7:39 AM
To: ucckita@yahoogroups.com
Does the name Lakhsmi Mittal ring a bell? Well, maybe not (and never mind if it doesn't). First it is a he, not a she. Second, he is not a Bollywood movie star, though he is certainly a kind of star in his own league.
Forbes magazine has just crowned him as one of the richest persons in the world with an estimated wealth of US$25 billion, trailing behind the other two more familiar and already famous names, Warren Buffet in second place and Bill Gates in first. Mittal's story (he is the owner of the largest steel firm on the planet) marks one of the milestones of the rise of Indian entrepreneurs following the success of many Indian professionals in business around the world.
Consider Ajay Banja. He started his career in Nestle in India, where one of his jobs was getting up at 4 a.m. to collect milk from nearby dairy farms. Then he moved to PepsiCo's restaurant group and later on joined Citigroup in 1996. He was transferred to the United States in 2000 and became president of North America retail banking two years afterwards. Just recently, he was appointed as a co-director of the global retail banking group, together with Steven Freiberg; a position second only to the number one in Citigroup.
We have become used to seeing Indian faces occupying top jobs abroad. The sub-continent's executives, bankers, scientists, writers, journalists, thinkers, venture capitalists and even movie stars and cinematographers have been steadily gaining recognition around the world. Not to mention the massive numbers working in the Indian IT industry, which has become something of a trademark of the new India. The graduates of Indian institutes of technology (IIT) and their counterparts in the management field (IIM) never have to worry about getting jobs, but rather are more preoccupied with deciding on which job they will pick after they leave school.
The list of successes goes on, but what we need to immediately ask ourselves is what factors have made them successful and why Indonesia cannot do the same thing. Why? Are Indonesians not smart enough?
A tempting question, indeed. But unfortunately, it is at best irrelevant and at worst misleading. The main reason behind the success of Indian professionals and entrepreneurs is that they are more assertive, or talkative, than most other Asians.
This might be attributed to the language they speak (English), which leads, directly or indirectly, to greater self-confidence. People can easily ignore the importance of self-confidence and assertiveness, but these traits play significant roles outside of Indonesia.
Just like many Javanese still call every white foreigner a Londo (literally, a Dutchman), ignoring the fact that he may not even know where Holland is, it is also difficult for people from outside East Asia to tell the difference between, for instance, a Japanese and a Chinese. And being unassertive doesn't help. "Low profile, low profit, high profile, high profit"; that seems to be the rule in international competition. There is a fine line between keeping a low profile and humility, and failure to make a distinction between the two only leads to greater failure.
Thus, English language capabilities is certainly an important contributing factor. In retrospect, the economic and political development of some former British colonies has been dramatic, and they have managed to take their places among the middle- and upper-income bracket nations, like Singapore and Malaysia. Other former colonies and English-speaking countries like Australia, New Zealand and Ireland (the latter has consistently recorded the fastest growth in the European Union for almost the last two decades), have also performed very well.
The domination of English as the international language, thanks to the former British empire and current U.S. "empire", in the education, political, economic and cultural fields, has given an advantage to the workforces of these countries. Indonesia, which hastily and imprudently scrapped the Dutch language right after independence, and failed to replace it with English or even Arabic, has had to pay a hefty price. Being bilingual or multilingual has become a basic necessity if one wants to compete and there is no way around this.
Building image is the next big thing. When the top three images of Indonesia among people abroad are the tsunami, terrorism and corruption, it takes twice as much work to overhaul these impressions. Another example, Indonesia was in 4th place in terms of Erasmus Mundus scholarship recipients (nine scholars) in 2004, with India coming 6th (five scholars). While the number of recipients from Indonesia this year increased to 14 scholars, India jumped to the top of the table with 137 scholars, leaving Indonesia well behind in 14th place.
But one might ask how India can produce the third richest man on the planet while hundreds of millions out of its population of one billion still live in poverty? Or how in Bangalore, the center of the IT industry, poor parents have to bribe health workers with between $7 and $12 (equivalent to average weekly pay) before health workers will let them see their newborn children? How can these glaring contrasts be reconciled?
Well, first things first. We have millions of poor people ourselves, and, besides, they are working to solve the problem. Second, would it be better: a) to have millions of poor people and not have world class executives and entrepreneurs or b) to have millions of poor people but also have world class executives and entrepreneurs?
How long will we continue to allow the world to laugh at us, the fourth most populous country in the world? How come that when the world talks about "the new superpowers" from Asia, it always refers to China and India, the first and second most populous countries in the world, but never mentions Indonesia, the world's third most populous nation? It would appear that our two hundred and twenty million people are nothing more than empty numbers and statistics.
China , India and Indonesia all have the advantage of young populations. Japan and South Korea can now sniff trouble in the air as their populations age and are beginning to ask whether the next generation will be able to support the elderly when that time comes.
While aging populations are a big problem in developed countries, what is likely to happen in Indonesia? If the present younger generation is not equipped to get the economy moving, the future will be bleak: There will be simply no resources to sustain our current standard of living (which is already low) and to repay our debts. In short, we are talking about a failed nation.
We can avoid this tragedy by starting to learn from others. We often hear people saying we cannot learn from Singapore because it is just a small country. Others say we cannot learn from China or India because they are too big. Or that America is way too advanced to be copied. Hundreds of excuses can be made to allow us to put off learning from others, but what's the point? Criticising others does not make us a better nation. Unless we work as hard as they do, we will end up on the road to nowhere.
With regard to bilingual education in Indonesia, some experts have been debating the initiatives taken by some schools, or lack thereof, as summarised by Pieter Van Der Vienhart (The myth of national plus schools in RI, The Jakarta Post, Sept. 3, 2005). To which we might want to recall the old adage, "If you wait for everything to be perfect, you will never get anything done."
The writer is a postgraduate student in sustainable resource management, Technical University of Munich. He can be reached at aziz9672@....
Does the name Lakhsmi Mittal ring a bell? Well, maybe not (and never mind if it doesn't). First it is a he, not a she. Second, he is not a Bollywood movie star, though he is certainly a kind of star in his own league.
Forbes magazine has just crowned him as one of the richest persons in the world with an estimated wealth of US$25 billion, trailing behind the other two more familiar and already famous names, Warren Buffet in second place and Bill Gates in first. Mittal's story (he is the owner of the largest steel firm on the planet) marks one of the milestones of the rise of Indian entrepreneurs following the success of many Indian professionals in business around the world.
Consider Ajay Banja. He started his career in Nestle in India, where one of his jobs was getting up at 4 a.m. to collect milk from nearby dairy farms. Then he moved to PepsiCo's restaurant group and later on joined Citigroup in 1996. He was transferred to the United States in 2000 and became president of North America retail banking two years afterwards. Just recently, he was appointed as a co-director of the global retail banking group, together with Steven Freiberg; a position second only to the number one in Citigroup.
We have become used to seeing Indian faces occupying top jobs abroad. The sub-continent's executives, bankers, scientists, writers, journalists, thinkers, venture capitalists and even movie stars and cinematographers have been steadily gaining recognition around the world. Not to mention the massive numbers working in the Indian IT industry, which has become something of a trademark of the new India. The graduates of Indian institutes of technology (IIT) and their counterparts in the management field (IIM) never have to worry about getting jobs, but rather are more preoccupied with deciding on which job they will pick after they leave school.
The list of successes goes on, but what we need to immediately ask ourselves is what factors have made them successful and why Indonesia cannot do the same thing. Why? Are Indonesians not smart enough?
A tempting question, indeed. But unfortunately, it is at best irrelevant and at worst misleading. The main reason behind the success of Indian professionals and entrepreneurs is that they are more assertive, or talkative, than most other Asians.
This might be attributed to the language they speak (English), which leads, directly or indirectly, to greater self-confidence. People can easily ignore the importance of self-confidence and assertiveness, but these traits play significant roles outside of Indonesia.
Just like many Javanese still call every white foreigner a Londo (literally, a Dutchman), ignoring the fact that he may not even know where Holland is, it is also difficult for people from outside East Asia to tell the difference between, for instance, a Japanese and a Chinese. And being unassertive doesn't help. "Low profile, low profit, high profile, high profit"; that seems to be the rule in international competition. There is a fine line between keeping a low profile and humility, and failure to make a distinction between the two only leads to greater failure.
Thus, English language capabilities is certainly an important contributing factor. In retrospect, the economic and political development of some former British colonies has been dramatic, and they have managed to take their places among the middle- and upper-income bracket nations, like Singapore and Malaysia. Other former colonies and English-speaking countries like Australia, New Zealand and Ireland (the latter has consistently recorded the fastest growth in the European Union for almost the last two decades), have also performed very well.
The domination of English as the international language, thanks to the former British empire and current U.S. "empire", in the education, political, economic and cultural fields, has given an advantage to the workforces of these countries. Indonesia, which hastily and imprudently scrapped the Dutch language right after independence, and failed to replace it with English or even Arabic, has had to pay a hefty price. Being bilingual or multilingual has become a basic necessity if one wants to compete and there is no way around this.
Building image is the next big thing. When the top three images of Indonesia among people abroad are the tsunami, terrorism and corruption, it takes twice as much work to overhaul these impressions. Another example, Indonesia was in 4th place in terms of Erasmus Mundus scholarship recipients (nine scholars) in 2004, with India coming 6th (five scholars). While the number of recipients from Indonesia this year increased to 14 scholars, India jumped to the top of the table with 137 scholars, leaving Indonesia well behind in 14th place.
But one might ask how India can produce the third richest man on the planet while hundreds of millions out of its population of one billion still live in poverty? Or how in Bangalore, the center of the IT industry, poor parents have to bribe health workers with between $7 and $12 (equivalent to average weekly pay) before health workers will let them see their newborn children? How can these glaring contrasts be reconciled?
Well, first things first. We have millions of poor people ourselves, and, besides, they are working to solve the problem. Second, would it be better: a) to have millions of poor people and not have world class executives and entrepreneurs or b) to have millions of poor people but also have world class executives and entrepreneurs?
How long will we continue to allow the world to laugh at us, the fourth most populous country in the world? How come that when the world talks about "the new superpowers" from Asia, it always refers to China and India, the first and second most populous countries in the world, but never mentions Indonesia, the world's third most populous nation? It would appear that our two hundred and twenty million people are nothing more than empty numbers and statistics.
China , India and Indonesia all have the advantage of young populations. Japan and South Korea can now sniff trouble in the air as their populations age and are beginning to ask whether the next generation will be able to support the elderly when that time comes.
While aging populations are a big problem in developed countries, what is likely to happen in Indonesia? If the present younger generation is not equipped to get the economy moving, the future will be bleak: There will be simply no resources to sustain our current standard of living (which is already low) and to repay our debts. In short, we are talking about a failed nation.
We can avoid this tragedy by starting to learn from others. We often hear people saying we cannot learn from Singapore because it is just a small country. Others say we cannot learn from China or India because they are too big. Or that America is way too advanced to be copied. Hundreds of excuses can be made to allow us to put off learning from others, but what's the point? Criticising others does not make us a better nation. Unless we work as hard as they do, we will end up on the road to nowhere.
With regard to bilingual education in Indonesia, some experts have been debating the initiatives taken by some schools, or lack thereof, as summarised by Pieter Van Der Vienhart (The myth of national plus schools in RI, The Jakarta Post, Sept. 3, 2005). To which we might want to recall the old adage, "If you wait for everything to be perfect, you will never get anything done."
The writer is a postgraduate student in sustainable resource management, Technical University of Munich. He can be reached at aziz9672@....
Friday, August 18, 2006
Sebentuk Munajat Kiranya Diijabah
Ya 4JJI Engkau yang Maha Mendengar, Maha Melihat , Maha Mengetahui, Maha Pemberi Rizki, Maha Pemberi Jodoh
Ya 4JJI jikalau Engkau berkenan jadikanlah dia jodohku, dan jadikanlah ia suatu saat ia adalah wanita yang akan menjadi istriku, dan jadikanlah ia seseorang yang beriman kepadaMu.
Ya 4JJI jikalau Engkau berkenan jadikanlah dia jodohku, dan jadikanlah ia suatu saat ia adalah wanita yang akan menjadi istriku, dan jadikanlah ia seseorang yang beriman kepadaMu.
Ya 4JJI peliharalah ia di dalam kebaikan. dan jauhkanlah ia dari segala kejelekan , dan jadikanlah ia seorang wanita yg setia menemani aku hingga aku kembali kepadaMu.
Ya 4JJI, sesungguhnya semua yg ada di dunia adalah milikMu, Ya 4JJI jika Engkau berkehendak yang lain, maka perkenankanlah kiranya aku menemukan seseorang yang lebih baik dan lebih cantik darinya.
Segala usaha akan ku usahakan, namun jika gagal, aku tetep beserah diri kepadaMu dan aku tetap tidak akan berhenti berdoa dan tidak akan pernah berputus asa, semoga keimananku terhadapMu semakin kuat, dan semoga dengan ini aku bisa menemukan jatidiriku ..
Amien..!
Sunday, July 09, 2006
EXTREMISTS, RADICALS & FANATICS by Mike Ghouse
EXTREMISTS, RADICALS & FANATICS
No matter what faith group they belong to, they are the same
an article by Mike Ghouse
No matter what faith group they belong to, they are the same
an article by Mike Ghouse
In any write-up on radicals, you can simply substitute a few names or leave them blank to be filled in by each religious radical group. All hues will fit right in.The Christian right in the US is exactly the same as the Indian right. Every now and then, I have discussions with some of them boys. They are indeed shunned by the silent majority as they do not represent the Christian and Hindu values respectively.I ran into a National corporate trainer a while ago, who consults and coaches companies on multi culturism, ethnicity etc. He didn't mince any words to tell me that the Hindus Jews and Muslims cannot be on par with the believers, as they don't believe in Jesus. Yet he claims he teaches equality of mankind. This prejudiced man probably sells it to the gullible out there.The Extremist Muslims want to annihilate every one who disagrees with them. The silent majority of Muslims is waking up now at the same pace as all others. We cannot take them extremists any more.The extremist Jews in their zeal to preserve their homeland, have bulldozed their silent majority. Zionist is the word used by non-Jewish to describe them - However, to Jews it means going back to Zion, their homeland, hence the word Zionist is not the same as extremist Jews.
The radical Hindus have no doubt terrorized all other Hindus with false propaganda to no end. The silent majority of Hindus are as chicken as Muslims, and thank God they are awake.By the way, the radicals in all religions behave the same way, shamelessly they are a part of the religion they claim to belong, and are they are the most vociferous of them all. Their formula is exactly the same.The real fight is not between the common people, it is between fanatics of one religion with the other. It is a crime that this one percent of fanatics rules at this time.The 1% of radicals offer an unshakeable fake confidence to the 99% shook-up followers, that makes the ordinary fellows want to be with them for elusory protection. They concoct the fear and dream up guileful camouflage. They frighten the existence out of everyone. But all the radicals would take the world to destruction, if we don't struggle with them and ebb their influence.
Muslim radicals like Osama, Ahmedinejad and several others frighten the Muslim crowds and gain their support.
Jewish radicals like Emerson, Pipes and several others frighten the Jewish crowds and gain their support
Christian extremists like Roberston, Falwell, Ashcroft and others frighten the Americans and gain their support.
Then you have the Hindu radicals like Venkkaiah, Joshi, Modi and several others who frighten the Hindu crowds and gain their support.
These radicals have to keep the fear as a constant factor for their own entertainment. If there is no war and no fear, their existence is meaningless. They have no qualms in manufacturing fear. God forbid we don't need another 911 and that legitimate fear breeds uncertainty and the radicals offer an unshakeable but foundationless certainty to have the silent majority look up to them. In reality they are the pied pipers.
WHAT IS COMMON BETWEEN ALL THE RADICALS?
INSECURITY
They are the most insecure individuals about themselves and their faiths. They feel some imaginable enemy is out to get them, and they have to destroy them at the root. Some become experts and as I watch the experts talk, I hear the phrase dime a dozen, make them more.LANGUAGE
One writing fits them all. Write one story about Muslim radicals, take the name of Muslims off and substitute with either Christian, Jewish or Hindu, the story is same.
ONE WAY COMMUNICATION
Radicals never read any thing intelligent, they are too eager to send their limited 50 words any time. Try sending them a blank email, they will respond even to that with the same 50 words in a different combination.
LOW COMPREHENSION
Many of the radicals (including radicals from your faith) have Doctorates and are very literate, but still do not have the ability to comprehend the difference between: Islamists and Islam; Hindutva and Hinduism ; Fanatic Jews (Zionist is not the word) and Judaism, Neo cons and Christianity. If you criticize about any one of these radicals, they will lift up the shield of their religion to gain support from the gullible. They need to know that they cannot use the religion as their shield. They are responsible for their ugly deeds and not their religion. Let them learn to own it up. Religion is never a problem, it is the individuals like the ones mentioned above who have created the chasm and the fear. As long as one exists, the others exist too.Religion is never a problem, it is the individuals like the ones mentioned above who have created the chasm and the fear. As long as one exists, the others exist too.
HOPE FOR MANKIND
We, the silent majority, have to just speak up. The radicals are like the classroom bullies who can be silenced by a few united voices. When you hear wrong things, just tell them that they are wrong. The good things about the majorities is that we do not fabricate lies and live an honest life.
Let me share two short stories to make the point.
Where I grew up, Monkeys ruled! They were every where and would walk to you and snatch things off your hands, usually near vegetable and fruit markets on the street side. They were big monkeys, no one dared challenging them except my brother in law, he would grab them and throw them, and they were afraid of him... I learned the life's biggest lesson then. When that Monkey is challenging you and you are challenging him - there is a tense pause for a few seconds that feel like eternity. In those few deadly moments - if you, even think of taking a step back, not really taking, but thinking or blink your eyelids... that Monkey reads the fear in you and is all over you. On the other hand if you stay firm and dare stare him... he will walk away. Humans are monkeys, when two bad guys do wrong - our silence and our fear will make them rule... just dare them, they will run. It has never failed me. Now, I apply that technique against bullies - I just have to say firmly no... and If I get two more to back me, they monkeys will run.
Now let me share its real application: - About January this year, we were invited to a house warming party, the blessing were done. Just before the dinner, people gathered in small groups. There is a young man who had presided the blessings and obviously a group poured over him. The stories of defeat and victory or conspiracy makes one very popular. The following story in variations has been confronted by me with Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Jewish groups. All of us have a few real extremists and some shallow ones. No one needs to gloat on this story, as I have one on every group. I get around quite a lot.
The man told the story of a Synagogue for sale in Virginia some place... and the "JEWS' did not want to sell it for a mosque instead sold it to some business. They could not run the business as they did not get the permit to sell alcohol in that area and had not choice but to sell the place. We "GRABBED" the building and today it is a Mosque" His head was high up, I did not waste a second and said - That is wrong, there is no need for you to talk hatred and Mosque together, No Muslim is suppose to hate any one..... there was that deadly pause again which I have gotten used to. Finally after six or seven seconds, which appeared like eternity was broken by two guys, who jumped on that religious man. The man was honest enough to apologized and promised me never again, would he tell a story that captures base sentiments of people. Had one single Monkey said one word to stop me... the crowd would probably gone the other way. May God forgive me for underestimating the goodness in humans. But it went the other way. The man has not spoken hatred again, God bless him.
If you are watching the television and they show some one in bad-light and you happen to hate them, but you know the information is factually not correct - at that time if your kids express hate towards the group, as opposed to the individuals, as a parents you have a choice to gloat and let your kids also hate or have the guts to keep the child's heart pure. The decision is yours, the change begins with each one of us.
There are people who make it a business to promote hate against each other, as if that is their sustenance. Please stop them or ask them to provide proof, most likely they will back off. We have to stop people from promoting hatred and teaching hatred, at our own level, in our own groups.
Let's not count on some government or some central body to do it. Each one of can do it, we have to match our talk with our work.
Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net
The radical Hindus have no doubt terrorized all other Hindus with false propaganda to no end. The silent majority of Hindus are as chicken as Muslims, and thank God they are awake.By the way, the radicals in all religions behave the same way, shamelessly they are a part of the religion they claim to belong, and are they are the most vociferous of them all. Their formula is exactly the same.The real fight is not between the common people, it is between fanatics of one religion with the other. It is a crime that this one percent of fanatics rules at this time.The 1% of radicals offer an unshakeable fake confidence to the 99% shook-up followers, that makes the ordinary fellows want to be with them for elusory protection. They concoct the fear and dream up guileful camouflage. They frighten the existence out of everyone. But all the radicals would take the world to destruction, if we don't struggle with them and ebb their influence.
Muslim radicals like Osama, Ahmedinejad and several others frighten the Muslim crowds and gain their support.
Jewish radicals like Emerson, Pipes and several others frighten the Jewish crowds and gain their support
Christian extremists like Roberston, Falwell, Ashcroft and others frighten the Americans and gain their support.
Then you have the Hindu radicals like Venkkaiah, Joshi, Modi and several others who frighten the Hindu crowds and gain their support.
These radicals have to keep the fear as a constant factor for their own entertainment. If there is no war and no fear, their existence is meaningless. They have no qualms in manufacturing fear. God forbid we don't need another 911 and that legitimate fear breeds uncertainty and the radicals offer an unshakeable but foundationless certainty to have the silent majority look up to them. In reality they are the pied pipers.
WHAT IS COMMON BETWEEN ALL THE RADICALS?
INSECURITY
They are the most insecure individuals about themselves and their faiths. They feel some imaginable enemy is out to get them, and they have to destroy them at the root. Some become experts and as I watch the experts talk, I hear the phrase dime a dozen, make them more.LANGUAGE
One writing fits them all. Write one story about Muslim radicals, take the name of Muslims off and substitute with either Christian, Jewish or Hindu, the story is same.
ONE WAY COMMUNICATION
Radicals never read any thing intelligent, they are too eager to send their limited 50 words any time. Try sending them a blank email, they will respond even to that with the same 50 words in a different combination.
LOW COMPREHENSION
Many of the radicals (including radicals from your faith) have Doctorates and are very literate, but still do not have the ability to comprehend the difference between: Islamists and Islam; Hindutva and Hinduism ; Fanatic Jews (Zionist is not the word) and Judaism, Neo cons and Christianity. If you criticize about any one of these radicals, they will lift up the shield of their religion to gain support from the gullible. They need to know that they cannot use the religion as their shield. They are responsible for their ugly deeds and not their religion. Let them learn to own it up. Religion is never a problem, it is the individuals like the ones mentioned above who have created the chasm and the fear. As long as one exists, the others exist too.Religion is never a problem, it is the individuals like the ones mentioned above who have created the chasm and the fear. As long as one exists, the others exist too.
HOPE FOR MANKIND
We, the silent majority, have to just speak up. The radicals are like the classroom bullies who can be silenced by a few united voices. When you hear wrong things, just tell them that they are wrong. The good things about the majorities is that we do not fabricate lies and live an honest life.
Let me share two short stories to make the point.
Where I grew up, Monkeys ruled! They were every where and would walk to you and snatch things off your hands, usually near vegetable and fruit markets on the street side. They were big monkeys, no one dared challenging them except my brother in law, he would grab them and throw them, and they were afraid of him... I learned the life's biggest lesson then. When that Monkey is challenging you and you are challenging him - there is a tense pause for a few seconds that feel like eternity. In those few deadly moments - if you, even think of taking a step back, not really taking, but thinking or blink your eyelids... that Monkey reads the fear in you and is all over you. On the other hand if you stay firm and dare stare him... he will walk away. Humans are monkeys, when two bad guys do wrong - our silence and our fear will make them rule... just dare them, they will run. It has never failed me. Now, I apply that technique against bullies - I just have to say firmly no... and If I get two more to back me, they monkeys will run.
Now let me share its real application: - About January this year, we were invited to a house warming party, the blessing were done. Just before the dinner, people gathered in small groups. There is a young man who had presided the blessings and obviously a group poured over him. The stories of defeat and victory or conspiracy makes one very popular. The following story in variations has been confronted by me with Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Jewish groups. All of us have a few real extremists and some shallow ones. No one needs to gloat on this story, as I have one on every group. I get around quite a lot.
The man told the story of a Synagogue for sale in Virginia some place... and the "JEWS' did not want to sell it for a mosque instead sold it to some business. They could not run the business as they did not get the permit to sell alcohol in that area and had not choice but to sell the place. We "GRABBED" the building and today it is a Mosque" His head was high up, I did not waste a second and said - That is wrong, there is no need for you to talk hatred and Mosque together, No Muslim is suppose to hate any one..... there was that deadly pause again which I have gotten used to. Finally after six or seven seconds, which appeared like eternity was broken by two guys, who jumped on that religious man. The man was honest enough to apologized and promised me never again, would he tell a story that captures base sentiments of people. Had one single Monkey said one word to stop me... the crowd would probably gone the other way. May God forgive me for underestimating the goodness in humans. But it went the other way. The man has not spoken hatred again, God bless him.
If you are watching the television and they show some one in bad-light and you happen to hate them, but you know the information is factually not correct - at that time if your kids express hate towards the group, as opposed to the individuals, as a parents you have a choice to gloat and let your kids also hate or have the guts to keep the child's heart pure. The decision is yours, the change begins with each one of us.
There are people who make it a business to promote hate against each other, as if that is their sustenance. Please stop them or ask them to provide proof, most likely they will back off. We have to stop people from promoting hatred and teaching hatred, at our own level, in our own groups.
Let's not count on some government or some central body to do it. Each one of can do it, we have to match our talk with our work.
Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net
directly taken from a message at muslim_youth_connection@yahoogroups.com
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Ada apa antara Perancis & Agama? From Harun Yahya
Ada apa antara Perancis & Agama?
Prancis dan sejumlah negara lain terseret ke dalam perdebatan saat dua murid dikeluarkan dari sekolah karena mengenakan jilbab. Prancis memperluas larangan dan mengusulkan undang-undang yang melarang penggunaan pakaian dan lambang-lambang yang secara terbuka menampilkan jati diri agama. Selain jilbab, undang-undang ini juga berlaku bagi Salib agama Kristen dan topi yarmulke agama Yahudi. Undang-undang ini menyebabkan gelombang kecaman. Negara-negara muslim, Inggris, Amerika Serikat dan Jerman mengutuk undang-undang tersebut dan menekankan bahwa pemberlakuan undang-undang itu dapat menyebabkan ketegangan dan permusuhan di Prancis. Mereka juga menegaskan bahwa undang-undang itu bertentangan dengan kebebasan beragama dan hak asasi manusia. Tapi, sejauh ini, penentangan-penentangan itu tidak membuat pemerintah Prancis menarik keputusannya.
Kita tidak seharusnya menafsirkan apa yang terjadi di Prancis hanya sebagai larangan pada lambang-lambang keagamaan; ketakutan pemerintah Prancis terhadap agama dan ajaran agama berakar sejak dulu kala. Mereka yang sadar akan perkembangan budaya masyarakat serta hubungan antara gereja dan negara di Prancis akan paham bahwa langkah-langkah semacam ini dan perdebatan yang ditimbulkannya sangatlah dikenal dalam masyarakat Prancis. Terlebih lagi, ketakutan ini tidak hanya sebatas terhadap Islam dan Yahudi; kenangan tentang pembunuhan penganut Katolik selama Revolusi Prancis belumlah terhapuskan.
Pola hubungan gereja-negara di Prancis dibentuk melalui pertikaian, kebencian, kemarahan dan pembantaian. Perselisihan ini berawal di abad ke-8 melawan Gereja Katolik dengan tujuan mengurangi pengaruh Gereja terhadap masyarakat. Dapat kita katakan bahwa selama masa ini, masyarakat menjadi terjauhkan dari nilai-nilai ruhani dan agama dan berada di bawah pengaruh filsafat materialis.
Abad Pencerahan: Bagaimana Masyarakat Eropa Menjauh dari Nilai-Nilai Agama
Masa di mana gagasan-gagasan materialis dan evolusionis mendapatkan penerimaan secara luas dalam masyarakat Eropa, berpengaruh dalam menjauhkan masyarakat itu dari agama, dikenal sebagai Pencerahan. Tentu saja, orang-orang yang memilih kata ini (yaitu mereka yang menganggap perubahan pola pemikiran ini secara positif sebagai gerakan menuju cahaya) adalah para pemimpin penyimpangan ini. Mereka menggambarkan masa sebelumnya sebagai “Abad Kegelapan†dan menyalahkan agama sebagai penyebabnya, serta menegaskan bahwa Eropa mengalami pencerahan ketika disekulerkan [dibebaskan dari pengaruh agama] dan menjauhkan diri dari agama. Pandangan yang menyimpang dan tidak benar ini kini masih merupakan satu dari sarana propaganda mereka yang menentang agama.
Benar bahwa agama Kristen Abad Pertengahan sebagiannya “gelap†akibat takhayul dan sikap taklid buta, dan kebanyakan hal-hal ini telah dibersihkan pasca Abad Pertengahan. Bahkan kenyataannya, gerakan Pencerahan tidak pula membawa hasil bermanfaat bagi masyarakat Barat. Hasil terpenting Abad Pencerahan, yang muncul di Prancis, adalah Revolusi Prancis, yang mengubah negara itu menjadi lautan darah. Bagi sebagian besar cendekiawan Prancis, Abad Pencerahan berarti membersihkan pemikiran masyarakat dari setiap nilai agama dan ruhani. Hampir semua pemikir yang hidup di Prancis abad ke-18 sama-sama memiliki pandangan ini. Revolusi Prancis dibangun di atas gagasan Pencerahan ini yang paling berpengaruh di Prancis; yang merupakan salah satu revolusi modern paling biadab, kejam, dan mengerikan. Segera setelah kelompok Jacobin berkuasa pasca Revolusi Prancis, hal pertama yang mereka lakukan adalah pemberlakuan hukuman mati [penggal kepala] dengan pisau guillotine; ribuan orang kehilangan kepala mereka hanya karena mereka dituduh kaya atau taat beragama. Salah seorang pemimpin Revolusi Prancis bernama Fouché (nama julukannya adalah Penjagal dari Lyon) mengutus panitia yang dipimpin oleh 3 orang ke Lyon untuk membasmi kalangan bangsawan tuan tanah dan agamawan di sana. Dalam sebuah surat yang ia kirim kepada Robespierre, sang pemimpin Senat, Fouché menulis bahwa pisau guillotine bergerak terlalu lamban dan bahwa ia tidak puas dengan kemajuan revolusi yang lambat. Ia meminta izin untuk melakukan pembantaian besar-besaran. Di hari ia mendapatkan izin tersebut, ribuan orang dengan tangan terikat di belakang punggung mereka dibantai tanpa belas kasih oleh senapan-senapan revolusi.
Kini tulisan-tulisan yang terpengaruhi gagasan Pencerahan memuji Revolusi Prancis; padahal, Revolusi itu sangat merugikan Prancis dan menyebabkan perseteruan dalam masyarakat yang berlangsung hingga abad ke-21. Pengkajian tentang Revolusi Prancis dan Abad Pencerahan oleh pemikir terkenal Inggris, Edmund Burke, sangatlah penting. Dalam bukunya yang terkenal, Reflections on the Revolution in France [Renungan tentang Revolusi di Prancis], terbit tahun 1790, ia mengecam gagasan tentang Pencerahan sekaligus hasilnya, yakni Revolusi Prancis; menurut pendapatnya, gerakan itu menghancurkan nilai-nilai asasi yang menyatukan masyarakat, seperti agama, akhlak dan tatanan keluarga, serta membuka jalan bagi merajalelanya ketakutan dan kekacauan. Akhirnya, ia menganggap Pencerahan, sebagaimana diungkapkan seorang penafsir, sebagai suatu “gerakan pemikiran manusia yang bersifat merusak.†1
Pemimpin-pemimpin gerakan merusak ini adalah para Mason [anggota perkumpulan Freemasonry]. Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, dan para pemikir anti-agama lainnya yang merekayasa jalan menuju Revolusi, seluruhnya adalah Mason. Kelompok Mason sangat dekat dengan kelompok Jacobin yang merupakan pemimpin Revolusi. Hal ini membuat sebagian ahli sejarah berpendapat bahwa adalah sulit membedakan antara Jacobinisme dan Masonry di Prancis pada masa itu.
Selama Revolusi Prancis berlangsung, permusuhan besar ditujukan secara terang-terangan terhadap agama. Banyak pendeta dihukum penggal kepala dengan pisau guillotine, gereja-gereja dihancurkan, dan terlebih lagi, ada pihak-pihak yang ingin memberantas habis agama Kristen dan menggantinya dengan sebuah agama menyimpang, agama penyembah berhala, agama simbol yang disebut “Agama Akal.†Para pemimpin Revolusi juga menjadi korban kegilaan ini, masing-masing mereka akhirnya kehilangan kepala mereka sendiri oleh pisau guillotine, yang dengannya mereka sendiri telah menghukum begitu banyak orang. Bahkan saat ini, banyak orang Prancis yang terus mempertanyakan benar tidaknya Revolusi tersebut merupakan sesuatu hal yang baik. Perasaan anti-agama dari Revolusi Prancis menyebar ke seantero Eropa dan, hasilnya, abad ke-19 menjadi salah satu babak propaganda anti-agama yang paling terbuka dan gencar.
Perang Melawan Agama di Prancis
Peran yang dimainkan kelompok Mason dalam Revolusi diakui oleh “agen provokator†bernama Count Cagliostro. Cagliostro ditangkap oleh Iquisition [lembaga pengadilan gereja Katolik Roma antara tahun 1232-1820] pada tahun 1789, dan membuat sejumlah pengakuan penting selama dimintai keterangan. Ia memulai dengan menyatakan bahwa para Mason di seluruh Eropa telah merencanakan serangkaian revolusi. Ia mengatakan bahwa tujuan utama kelompok Mason adalah menghancurkan Lembaga Kepausan atau mengambil alihnya.
Makar perkumpulan Masonry di Prancis tidak berhenti dengan Revolusi. Kekacauan yang muncul akibat Revolusi akhirnya dipadamkan saat Napoleon menduduki kekuasaan. Tapi, keadaan tenang ini tidak berlangsung lama; cita-cita Napoleon untuk berkuasa di seluruh Eropa hanya berujung pada akhir kekuasannya. Setelah itu, pertikaian di Prancis terus berlangsung antara pihak kerajaan dan pendukung Revolusi. Di tahun 1803, 1848, dan 1871, tiga revolusi lagi terjadi. Di tahun 1848, “Republik Kedua†didirikan; di tahun 1871, “Republik Ketiga†dibentuk. Di tahun 1881, Katolik tidak lagi menjadi agama resmi Prancis dan di tahun 1988 pelajaran agama dihilangkan sama sekali dari sistem pendidikan.
Kelompok Mason sangatlah giat selama masa pergolakan ini. Tujuan utama mereka adalah memperlemah Gereja dan lembaga-lembaga keagamaannya, menghancurkan nilai-nilai agama dan pengaruh hukum-hukum agama dalam masyarakat, dan menghapus pendidikan agama. Kelompok Mason memandang paham perlawanan terhadap kekuasaan kaum agamawan sebagai pusat gerakan sosial dan politik mereka.
The Catholic Encyclopedia [Ensiklopedia Katolik] memberikan keterangan penting tentang gerakan anti-agama dari Grand Orient, julukan bagi Masonry Prancis:
Dari surat-surat resmi Masonry Prancis yang dimuat terutama dalam “Buletin†dan “Laporan†resmi Grand Orient, telah dibuktikan bahwa seluruh kebijakan yang memusuhi kekuasaan kaum agamawan yang dikeluarkan di Parlemen Prancis telah diputuskan sebelumnya di pusa-pusat pertemuan kelompok Mason dan dilaksanakan di bawah arahan Grand Orient, yang bertujuan, sebagaimana dinyatakannya secara jelas, untuk mengendalikan setiap hal dan setiap orang di Prancis. “Saya telah mengatakan di majelis tahun 1898,†kata sang anggota dewan Massé, juru bicara resmi majelis tahun 1903, “bahwa adalah tugas terpenting Freemasonry untuk setiap hari terlibat lebih banyak dalam perjuangan politik dan anti-agama.†“Keberhasilan (dalam perang melawan kekeuasaan kaum pendeta) sebagian besarnya adalah berkat Freemasonry; sebab jiwanya, rencananya, caranyalah yang telah menang.†“Jika Blok ini telah didirikan, ini berkat Freemasonry dan berkat disiplin yang dipelajari di pusat-pusat pertemuan [Freemasonry]â€â€¦ “Kita perlu waspada dan yang terpenting saling percaya, jika kita hendak menuntaskan kerja kita, yang sejauh ini belum selesai. Kerja ini, Anda tahu…perang melawan kekuasaan kaum pendeta, sedang berlangsung. Republik ini harus membersihkan diri dari lembaga-lembaga keagamaan, menyapu bersih mereka dengan satu hantaman keras. Perencanaan setengah-setengah di mana pun berbahaya; lawan harus dihancurkan dengan sekali pukul. 2
The Catholic Encyclopedia meneruskan paparan tentang peperangan Masonry Prancis melawan agama:
Sebenarnya seluruh pembaharuan Masonik “anti-kekuasaan kaum agamawan†yang dijalankan di Prancis sejak 1877, seperti penghapusan pengajaran agama dari pendidikan, kebijakan menentang sekolah-sekolah dan badan-badan kemanusiaan Kristen swasta, pelarangan dewan-dewan keagamaan dan penghancuran lembaga Gereja, diakui berpuncak pada perombakan anti-Kristen dan anti-agama terhadap masyarakat manusia, tidak hanya di Prancis tapi di seluruh dunia. Dengan demikian Freemasonry Prancis, sebagai pemimpin seluruh gerakan Freemasonry, seolah meresmikan masa keemasan republik universal Masonik, yang meliputi persaudaraan Masonik dari semua manusia dan seluruh bangsa. “Masa Kejayaan Galilean,“ kata presiden Grand Orient, Senator Delpech, pada tanggal 20 September 1902, “telah berlangsung selama 20 abad. Tapi kini gilirannya dia mati… Gereja Katolik Roma, yang didirikan di atas dongeng Galilean, mulai mengalami keruntuhan dengan cepat sejak hari didirikannya Kelompok Masonik. 3
“Galilean†yang dimaksud kelompok Mason adalah Yesus, karena menurut Injil, Yesus lahir di kota Galilee di Palestina. Karena itu, kebencian kelompok Mason terhadap Gereja adalah sebuah luapan kebencian mereka terhadap Yesus dan terhadap semua agama yang mengakui adanya satu Tuhan. Dengan budaya materialis, Darwinis dan humanis yang mereka bangun di abad ke-19, mereka yakin bahwa mereka telah menghancurkan agama dan menghidupkan kembali Eropa dalam bentuk paganisme pra-Kristen [yakni agama politeistik atau agama selain Kristen, Yahudi dan Islam].
Saat kata-kata ini diucapkan di tahun 1902, serangkaian undang-undang di Prancis memperluas ruang lingkup penentangan terhadap agama. Tiga ribu sekolah agama ditutup dan memberikan pelajaran agama apa pun di sekolah dilarang. Banyak pendeta ditangkap, sebagian di antaranya diasingkan dan orang-orang taat beragama mulai dianggap sebagai warga kelas dua. Karena alasan ini, di tahun 1904, Vatikan memutuskan seluruh hubungan kenegaraan dengan Prancis, tapi hal ini tidak mengubah sikap negara tersebut. Dibutuhkan korban ratusan ribu jiwa orang Prancis yang melawan tentara Jerman di Perang Dunia I sebelum keangkuhan negeri itu ditundukkan dan Prancis mengakui kembali pentingnya nilai-nilai agama.
Seperti dinyatakan The Catholic Encyclopedia, perang melawan agama, sejak Revolusi Prancis hingga abad ke-20, dilancarkan melalui “kebijakan-kebijakan anti-pendeta yang dikeluarkan Parlemen Prancis†yang “diputuskan sebelumnya di pusat-pusat pertemuan Masonik dan dilaksanakan di bawah arahan Grand Orient.†4 Fakta ini tampak jelas dari tulisan-tulisan Masonik. Misalnya, sebuah kutipan dari terbitan Turki berjudul "A Speech Made by Brother Gambetta on July 8 1875 in the Clémente Amitié Lodge" [Sebuah Pidato yang Disampaikan oleh Saudara Gambetta tanggal 8 Juli 1875, di Pusat Pertemuan Clémente Amitié] berbunyi:
Sementara bayangan ketakutan akan tindakan balasan mengancam Prancis, dan doktrin agama serta pemikiran terbelakang melancarkan serangan melawan prinsip dan hukum sosial modern, di tengah-tengah perkumpulan yang terampil, berpandangan ke depan seperti Masonry yang menjunjung tinggi prinsip-prinsip persaudaraan, kita temukan kekuatan dan dukungan dalam perjuangan melawan kekuasaan Gereja yang kelewat batas, sikapnya yang dibesar-besarkan dan konyol serta tindakannya yang selalu berlebihan… kita wajib berjaga-jaga dan meneruskan perjuangan. Dalam rangka menegakkan gagasan tentang tatanan dan kemajuan manusia, mari kita bertahan agar perisai kita tidak dapat ditembus. 5
Dapat dicermati bahwa tulisan-tulisan Masonik senantiasa menampilkan gagasan-gagasan mereka sendiri sebagai “berpandangan jauh ke depan†sementara menuduh orang taat beragama sebagai “terbelakangâ€. Namun, ini hanyalah permainan kata-kata. Pendapat mengenai “bayangan ketakutan akan tindakan balasanâ€, yang disebutkan dalam kutipan di atas, adalah sesuatu yang juga ditentang oleh orang yang benar-benar taat beragama, tapi dimanfaatkan kelompok Mason untuk membidik agama yang benar dalam usaha mereka menjauhkan orang darinya. Selain itu, perlu ditegaskan kembali bahwa filsafat materialis-humanis yang dianut kalangan Mason sesungguhnya adalah takhayul, pola pemikiran terbelakang, warisan peradaban penyembah berhala Mesir Kuno dan Yunani Kuno.
Karenanya, penggunaan istilah seperti “berpandangan jauh ke depan†dan “terbelakang†oleh kelompok Mason dalam kenyataannya tidak memiliki dasar. Sungguh, hal tersebut tidak berdasar karena pertikaian antara kelompok Mason dan orang-orang taat beragama tidaklah lebih dari kelanjutan perseteruan antara dua pandangan yang telah ada sejak masa paling awal dari sejarah. Agamalah yang menyatakan yang pertama dari dua pandangan ini: bahwa umat manusia diciptakan dengan kehendak Tuhan dan bahwa umat manusia wajib menyembah-Nya. Inilah kebenaran itu. Pandangan yang berlawanan, yakni bahwa manusia tidak diciptakan, melainkan menjalani kehidupan yang tanpa makna dan tanpa tujuan, adalah yang dikemukakan oleh mereka yang mengingkari keberadaan Tuhan. Ketika dipahami secara benar, dapat ketahui bahwa penggunaan mereka akan istilah “terbelakang†dan “berpandangan jauh ke depan†tidaklah memiliki dasar.
Dengan memanfaatkan gagasan tentang “kemajuanâ€, kalangan Mason berupaya menghancurkan agama. "Catholic Encyclopedia" menyatakan:
Hal berikut dianggap sebagai cara-cara utama [gerakan freemasonry]:
(1) Menghancurkan sama sekali seluruh pengaruh Gereja dan agama terhadap masyarakat, yang secara licik dijuluki “clericalism†[“paham yang mendukung kekuasaan kaum agamawanâ€], melalui penekanan terbuka terhadap Gereja atau melalui sistem munafik dan menipu [yaitu] pemisahan antara Negara dan Gereja, dan sejauh mungkin, menghancurkan Gereja dan seluruh agama yang benar, yakni yang [bersumber dari] kekuatan di luar manusia, yang lebih dari sekedar aliran kebangsaan dan kemanusiaan yang tidak jelas;
(2) Mensekularisasi, melalui sistem “unsectarianism†[“ketidakfanatikanâ€] yang juga munafik dan menipu, seluruh kehidupan masyarakat dan pribadi dan, khususnya, pengajaran dan pendidikan umum. “Unsectarianism†[“ketidakfanatikanâ€] yang dimaksud oleh pihak Grand Orient adalah sectarianism [kefanatikan] yang anti-Katolik dan bahkan anti-Kristen, ateistik, positifistik [aliran filsafat empirisme yang lebih kuat], atau agnostik berbaju unsectarianism [ketidakfanatikan]. Kebebasan berpikir dan bernurani anak-anak haruslah dibangun secara tertata dan terencana dalam diri anak di sekolah dan dilindungi, sejauh mungkin, dari segala pengaruh yang membahayakan, tidak hanya dari Gereja dan para pendeta, tapi juga dari orang tua anak-anak itu sendiri, jika perlu, bahkan melalui paksaan jasmaniyah dan kejiwaan. Kelompok Grand Orient menganggapnya sebagai sebuah jalan yang mutlak diperlukan dan yang pasti tidak gagal menuju puncak berdirinya republik sosial universal. 6
Dapat dipahami bahwa Masonry telah melaksanakan sebuah rencana, dengan mengatasnamakan “pembebasan masyarakatâ€, yang tujuannya menghapuskan agama, sebuah rencana yang masih sedang dijalankan. Ini tidak boleh disalahartikan dengan sebuah tatanan yang mengupayakan hak bagi setiap warga negara dengan keyakinan agama apa pun untuk menjalankan agamanya secara bebas. Sebaliknya, tatanan yang dicita-citakan oleh Masonry adalah sesuatu yang berupa pencucian otak besar-besaran, yang dirancang untuk menghapus sama sekali agama dari masyarakat dan dari akal pikiran setiap orang dan, jika perlu, menindas para penganutnya.
AJARAN AGAMA ADALAH JALAN KELUAR DARI SEGALA KESULITAN MASALAH UTAMANYA ADALAH KETIADAAN AGAMA
Kebijakan Prancis untuk menghapuskan agama bermula di abad ke-18 dan terus berlangsung selama tiga abad; hasilnya telah mengubah negeri itu menjadi sebuah bangsa yang takut terhadap agama, ajaran agama, dan orang-orang taat beragama. Dalam beberapa tahun belakangan, dan sebagai akibat dari berjalannya [kebijakan] ini, kalangan Muslim dan berbagai anggota perkumpulan keagamaan telah diserang.
Akan tetapi, ketakutan ini tidaklah berdasar. Sebenarnya, bukanlah agama, namun ketiadaan agamalah yang seharusnya ditakuti. Ajaran agama membawa kedamaian, kebahagiaan, keadilan, dan sikap saling menghargai ke dalam masyarakat. Dalam masyarakat dengan kesadaran beragama yang kuat, tidak mungkin ada kekerasan, kemaksiatan, atau ketakutan. Dengan alasan ini, ketakutan Prancis terhadap agama tidak perlu ada. Dalam masyarakat di mana perang, pertikaian, kekerasan dan ketidakadilan merajalela, ajaran agama tidaklah ada.
Dalam masyarakat yang jauh dari agama, dapatlah dipastikan bahwa sebagian besar orang bersifat mementingkan diri sendiri, tidak adil dan kosong dari kebaikan akhlak. Hanya nilai-nilai agama yang menjamin kesempurnaan akhlak bagi masyarakat dan pribadi. Mereka yang beriman kepada Tuhan berperilaku penuh tanggung jawab, karena mereka hanya hidup untuk mendapatkan ridha Tuhan dan paham bahwa mereka akan mempertanggungjawabkan segala perbuatan mereka. Karena takut kepada Tuhan, mereka dengan hati-hati menghindari perbuatan, sikap, perilaku buruk yang tidak disukai Tuhan. Sebuah masyarakat yang dipenuhi orang-orang semacam ini akan menjadi masyarakat yang tidak mengalami masalah-masalah sosial.
Sebaliknya, orang tak beriman, yang tidak mengakui bahwa ia pada akhirnya akan diberi pahala atau dihukum akibat amal perbuatannya, tidak akan memberi batasan atas perbuatan jahatnya. Walaupun menghindari bentuk perilaku tertentu yang tidak disukai masyarakat, banyak orang tidak ragu melakukan kejahatan lainnya saat mereka terdesak, terdorong, atau memiliki kesempatan.
Dalam masyarakat di mana tidak terdapat agama, orang rentan melakukan segala macam perbuatan tidak terpuji. Misalnya, seseorang yang taat beragama tidak akan pernah menerima suap, berjudi, merasa dengki, atau berbohong karena ia tahu bahwa ia harus bertanggung jawab atas semua perbuatan itu di akhirat. Namun, seseorang tak beragama cenderung mudah melakukan semua itu. Tidaklah cukup bagi seseorang berkata, “Saya tidaklah taat beragama tapi saya tidak menerima suapâ€, atau “Saya tidaklah taat beragama tapi saya tidak berjudiâ€, sebab orang yang tidak takut pada Tuhan dan tidak percaya bahwa ia akan memberikan pertanggungjawaban atas dirinya sendiri di akhirat mungkin akan melakukan salah satu perbuatan itu ketika kesempatan atau keadaannya berbeda. Seseorang yang berkata, “Saya tidak taat beragama tapi saya tidak berzina†mungkin saja melakukannya di suatu tempat di mana perzinahan dianggap wajar. Atau seseorang yang berkata bahwa ia tidak menerima suap mungkin berkata, “Anak saya sakit dan hampir meninggal, karena itu saya harus menerima suapâ€, jika ia tidak takut pada Tuhan.
Sebaliknya, orang taat beragama tidak melakukan kenistaan serupa itu, karena ia takut pada Tuhan dan ia tidak lalai bahwa Tuhan mengetahui niatnya dan juga pikirannya.
Seseorang yang jauh dari agama mungkin berkata, “Saya tidak taat beragama tapi saya pemaaf. Saya tidak merasa dendam atau benci,†tapi suatu hari peristiwa tak diinginkan mungkin saja menyebabkannya kehilangan kendali-diri dan melakukan tindakan yang paling tidak diharapkan. Ia mungkin saja berupaya membunuh atau melukai seseorang, karena acuan perilaku yang ia pegang dapat berubah menurut lingkungan dan keadaan tempat di mana ia tinggal. Akan tetapi, seseorang yang beriman kepada Tuhan dan Hari Akhir tidak pernah menyimpang dari akhlak baiknya, apa pun keadaan atau lingkungannya. Akhlaknya tidaklah “berubah-ubah†namun tegar. Allah merujuk tentang akhlak mulia orang-orang taat beragama dalam ayat-ayat-Nya:
(yaitu) orang-orang yang memenuhi janji Allah dan tidak melanggar perjanjian, dan orang-orang yang menghubungkan apa yang diperintahkan Allah agar dihubungkan, dan mereka takut kepada Tuhannya dan takut kepada hisab yang buruk. Dan orang yang sabar karena mengharap keridhaan Tuhannya, melaksanakan shalat, dan menginfakkan sebagian rezeki yang Kami berikan kepada mereka, secara sembunyi atau terang-terangan serta menolak kejahatan dengan kebaikan; orang itulah yang mendapat tempat kesudahan (yang baik). (QS. Ar Ra’d, 13:20-22)
Dalam lingkungan tanpa agama, gagasan pertama yang akan terhapuskan adalah keluarga. Nilai-nilai seperti kesetiaan, ketaatan, kepatuhan, cinta, dan penghargaan, yang menopang keluarga, benar-benar ditinggalkan. Harus diingat bahwa keluarga adalah pondasi masyarakat dan jika keluarga runtuh, runtuh pulalah masyarakat. Bahkan negara tidak memiliki alasan untuk tetap ada, karena seluruh nilai moral yang menopang negara telah lenyap.
Lagipula, dalam masyarakat tak beragama, tidak ada lagi alasan bagi seseorang untuk memiliki rasa hormat, cinta atau kasih sayang terhadap orang lain. Hal ini mengarah pada kekacauan hubungan antar-manusia. Si kaya membenci si miskin, si miskin dengki terhadap si kaya. Kemarahan muncul terhadap mereka yang cacat atau miskin. Atau serangan terhadap bangsa-bangsa lain meningkat. Karyawan berselisih dengan majikan mereka dan majikan bersengketa dengan para karyawannya, ayah memusuhi anak dan anak memusuhi ayah. Penyebab pertumpahan darah yang terus-menerus dan “berita halaman tiga†di koran-koran adalah ketiadaan agama. Di halaman-halaman itu, setiap hari, kita melihat liputan berita tentang orang-orang yang tanpa pikir panjang saling membunuh karena alasan sangat sepele.
Sebaliknya, orang yang paham bahwa ia akan dihisab di akhirat tidak akan menodongkan senjata ke kepala orang lain dan menembaknya. Ia tahu bahwa Tuhan melarang manusia melakukan kejahatan, dan rasa takutnya pada Tuhan memastikan bahwa ia akan menghindarkan diri dari azab ilahi. Dalam Alquran, Allah memerintahkan manusia menghindar dari berbuat kerusakan.
Dan janganlah kamu berbuat kerusakan di bumi setelah (diciptakan) dengan baik. Berdoalah kepada-Nya dengan rasa takut dan penuh harap. Sesungguhnya rahmat Allah sangat dekat kepada orang yang berbuat kebaikan. (QS. Al A’raaf, 7:56)
Keberadaan nilai-nilai agama memunculkan perasaan cinta karena Tuhan. Rasa cinta ini memiliki pengaruh yang luar biasa baik dan bermanfaat bagi semua orang. Untuk mendapatkan ridha Tuhan, orang beriman menghibur diri mereka sendiri dengan cara yang paling mulia, dan saling mencintai dan menghormati. Secara umum, belas kasih, sikap menghargai dan rasa kasih sayang meliputi masyarakat.Dilingkupi rasa takut pada Tuhan, orang sama sekali menghindar dari menjerumuskan diri dalam perbuatan bejat atau jahat. Dengan cara ini, setiap jenis kejahatan yang sebelumnya tidak mampu dicegah berhenti seketika. Jiwa dan semangat agama melingkupi sekeliling.
Dalam masyarakat di mana agama tidak merasuk, sudah menjadi fakta yang diakui bahwa orang menjadi bersifat berontak dan membangkang serta mengambil sikap memusuhi negara mereka. Sebaliknya, bagi seseorang yang hidup mengikuti ajaran agama, perintah negara sangatlah penting. Jika diperlukan, seseorang akan mengorbankan hidupnya demi nilai-nilai ini. Bagi orang seperti itu, kepentingan negerinya selalu berada di atas kepentingan pribadinya. Mereka mempertahankan nilai-nilai agama dan melakukan yang terbaik untuk membelanya.
Dalam keadaan yang sedemikian mendukung, memerintah negara menjadi sangat mudah. Negara menjadi tempat yang aman dan makmur. Para penyelenggara negara memperlakukan warga negaranya dengan adil dan lembut sehingga perlakuan tidak adil pun berhenti. Sebagai imbalannya, mereka dihormati oleh warga negara itu. Negara-negara seperti itu sudah pasti meletakkan dasar mereka di atas pondasi yang tak tergoyahkan.
Dengan ketiadaan akhlak Islami, ayah menjadi musuh anaknya, dan sebaliknya, sesama saudara berselisih, majikan menindas karyawan. Pabrik dan perusahaan berhenti menjalankan usaha akibat kekacauan dan si kaya memeras keringat si miskin. Di dunia dagang, orang mencoba saling berbuat curang. Kekacauan, pertikaian dan kekerasan menjadi jalan hidup bagi anggota masyarakat. Alasan semua ini adalah karena orang tidak memiliki rasa takut pada Tuhan. Orang yang tidak takut pada Tuhan merasa bebas bertindak tidak adil, dan tidak ragu mengambil jalan paling keras dan kejam—bahkan membunuh. Terlebih lagi, tanpa merasa bersalah, mereka berani secara terbuka mengungkapkan ketiadaan penyesalan mereka. Sebaliknya, seseorang yang yakin bahwa ia akan menghadapi siksa abadi di neraka tidak akan pernah melakukan tindakan seperti itu. Ajaran Alquran menihilkan semua perbuatan tidak baik semacam itu. Semuanya diselesaikan secara sederhana, tenang dan dengan cara terbaik. Kesalahan putusan hukum tidak terjadi dan, sementara itu, kantor polisi dan pengadilan sulit menemukan kasus yang harus ditangani.
Pikiran damai dan tenang orang-orang di seluruh segi kehidupan membawa kemakmuran kepada seluruh masyarakat. Penelitian ilmiah berkembang, tak satu pun hari berganti tanpa adanya penemuan baru atau terobosan teknologi dan hasilnya dimanfaatkan untuk kebaikan bersama. Kebudayaan berkembang dan para pemimpin bekerja untuk kesejahteraan rakyat. Kemakmuran ini ada berkat pikiran manusia yang terbebaskan dari tekanan. Ketika pikiran tenang, seseorang dapat mengembangkan kemampuan berpikir yang lebih baik dan keadaan ini memperbesar ruang lingkup berpikir. Hasilnya adalah pemanfaatan kemampuan berpikir yang jernih dan tidak terbelenggu. Hidup dengan pijakan akhlak yang baik membawa kemakmuran bagi masyarakat; mereka berhasil dalam kegiatan bisnis dan dagang mereka. Pertanian dan industri berkembang. Di seluruh bidang usaha, terdapat kemajuan yang nyata.
Jalan keluarnya sudah jelas: kembali kepada Tuhan, Pencipta segala sesuatu, dan mencapai kebahagiaan dan kedamaian hakiki dengan berpegang pada agama yang Tuhan ridhai untuk kita. Tuhan telah memberitahu kita bahwa keselamatan di dunia ini adalah dengan kembali kepada agama dan telah memberi kabar gembira bahwa hamba-hamba-Nya yang ikhlas tidak akan merasa takut, selama mereka patuh pada-Nya.
Allah telah menjanjikan kepada orang-orang di antara kamu yang beriman dan yang mengerjakan kebajikan, bahwa Dia sungguh akan menjadikan mereka berkuasa di bumi sebagaimana Dia telah menjadikan orang-orang sebelum mereka berkuasa, dan sungguh Dia akan meneguhkan bagi mereka dengan agama yang telah Dia ridhai. Dan Dia benar-benar mengubah (keadaan) mereka, setelah berada dalam ketakutan menjadi aman sentosa. Mereka tetap menyembah-Ku dengan tidak mempersekutukan-Ku dengan sesuatu pun. Tetapi barangsiapa (tetap) kafir setelah (janji) itu, maka mereka itulah orang-orang yang fasik. (QS. An Nuur, 24:55)
Karena itu, dengan semua alasan yang sudah kami paparkan di atas, masyarakat Prancis harus mencari jalan keluar bukan dengan ketiadaan agama tapi dengan penerapan ajaran agama.Jalan keluar dari persengketaan yang berkembang, kekerasan yang meningkat dan ketimpangan ekonomi tidaklah terletak pada pembuangan agama; bahkan sebaliknya: harus dicari dengan upaya menyebarluaskan ajaran agama. Ketika suatu bangsa takut pada Tuhan, bertindak mengikuti hati nuraninya dan memperlihatkan rasa sayang, belas kasih dan sikap menghargai, tidak ada keraguan bahwa hal itu akan dengan mudah memberantas kekejaman dan kebobrokan dalam masyarakatnya.
Prancis dan sejumlah negara lain terseret ke dalam perdebatan saat dua murid dikeluarkan dari sekolah karena mengenakan jilbab. Prancis memperluas larangan dan mengusulkan undang-undang yang melarang penggunaan pakaian dan lambang-lambang yang secara terbuka menampilkan jati diri agama. Selain jilbab, undang-undang ini juga berlaku bagi Salib agama Kristen dan topi yarmulke agama Yahudi. Undang-undang ini menyebabkan gelombang kecaman. Negara-negara muslim, Inggris, Amerika Serikat dan Jerman mengutuk undang-undang tersebut dan menekankan bahwa pemberlakuan undang-undang itu dapat menyebabkan ketegangan dan permusuhan di Prancis. Mereka juga menegaskan bahwa undang-undang itu bertentangan dengan kebebasan beragama dan hak asasi manusia. Tapi, sejauh ini, penentangan-penentangan itu tidak membuat pemerintah Prancis menarik keputusannya.
Kita tidak seharusnya menafsirkan apa yang terjadi di Prancis hanya sebagai larangan pada lambang-lambang keagamaan; ketakutan pemerintah Prancis terhadap agama dan ajaran agama berakar sejak dulu kala. Mereka yang sadar akan perkembangan budaya masyarakat serta hubungan antara gereja dan negara di Prancis akan paham bahwa langkah-langkah semacam ini dan perdebatan yang ditimbulkannya sangatlah dikenal dalam masyarakat Prancis. Terlebih lagi, ketakutan ini tidak hanya sebatas terhadap Islam dan Yahudi; kenangan tentang pembunuhan penganut Katolik selama Revolusi Prancis belumlah terhapuskan.
Pola hubungan gereja-negara di Prancis dibentuk melalui pertikaian, kebencian, kemarahan dan pembantaian. Perselisihan ini berawal di abad ke-8 melawan Gereja Katolik dengan tujuan mengurangi pengaruh Gereja terhadap masyarakat. Dapat kita katakan bahwa selama masa ini, masyarakat menjadi terjauhkan dari nilai-nilai ruhani dan agama dan berada di bawah pengaruh filsafat materialis.
Abad Pencerahan: Bagaimana Masyarakat Eropa Menjauh dari Nilai-Nilai Agama
Masa di mana gagasan-gagasan materialis dan evolusionis mendapatkan penerimaan secara luas dalam masyarakat Eropa, berpengaruh dalam menjauhkan masyarakat itu dari agama, dikenal sebagai Pencerahan. Tentu saja, orang-orang yang memilih kata ini (yaitu mereka yang menganggap perubahan pola pemikiran ini secara positif sebagai gerakan menuju cahaya) adalah para pemimpin penyimpangan ini. Mereka menggambarkan masa sebelumnya sebagai “Abad Kegelapan†dan menyalahkan agama sebagai penyebabnya, serta menegaskan bahwa Eropa mengalami pencerahan ketika disekulerkan [dibebaskan dari pengaruh agama] dan menjauhkan diri dari agama. Pandangan yang menyimpang dan tidak benar ini kini masih merupakan satu dari sarana propaganda mereka yang menentang agama.
Benar bahwa agama Kristen Abad Pertengahan sebagiannya “gelap†akibat takhayul dan sikap taklid buta, dan kebanyakan hal-hal ini telah dibersihkan pasca Abad Pertengahan. Bahkan kenyataannya, gerakan Pencerahan tidak pula membawa hasil bermanfaat bagi masyarakat Barat. Hasil terpenting Abad Pencerahan, yang muncul di Prancis, adalah Revolusi Prancis, yang mengubah negara itu menjadi lautan darah. Bagi sebagian besar cendekiawan Prancis, Abad Pencerahan berarti membersihkan pemikiran masyarakat dari setiap nilai agama dan ruhani. Hampir semua pemikir yang hidup di Prancis abad ke-18 sama-sama memiliki pandangan ini. Revolusi Prancis dibangun di atas gagasan Pencerahan ini yang paling berpengaruh di Prancis; yang merupakan salah satu revolusi modern paling biadab, kejam, dan mengerikan. Segera setelah kelompok Jacobin berkuasa pasca Revolusi Prancis, hal pertama yang mereka lakukan adalah pemberlakuan hukuman mati [penggal kepala] dengan pisau guillotine; ribuan orang kehilangan kepala mereka hanya karena mereka dituduh kaya atau taat beragama. Salah seorang pemimpin Revolusi Prancis bernama Fouché (nama julukannya adalah Penjagal dari Lyon) mengutus panitia yang dipimpin oleh 3 orang ke Lyon untuk membasmi kalangan bangsawan tuan tanah dan agamawan di sana. Dalam sebuah surat yang ia kirim kepada Robespierre, sang pemimpin Senat, Fouché menulis bahwa pisau guillotine bergerak terlalu lamban dan bahwa ia tidak puas dengan kemajuan revolusi yang lambat. Ia meminta izin untuk melakukan pembantaian besar-besaran. Di hari ia mendapatkan izin tersebut, ribuan orang dengan tangan terikat di belakang punggung mereka dibantai tanpa belas kasih oleh senapan-senapan revolusi.
Kini tulisan-tulisan yang terpengaruhi gagasan Pencerahan memuji Revolusi Prancis; padahal, Revolusi itu sangat merugikan Prancis dan menyebabkan perseteruan dalam masyarakat yang berlangsung hingga abad ke-21. Pengkajian tentang Revolusi Prancis dan Abad Pencerahan oleh pemikir terkenal Inggris, Edmund Burke, sangatlah penting. Dalam bukunya yang terkenal, Reflections on the Revolution in France [Renungan tentang Revolusi di Prancis], terbit tahun 1790, ia mengecam gagasan tentang Pencerahan sekaligus hasilnya, yakni Revolusi Prancis; menurut pendapatnya, gerakan itu menghancurkan nilai-nilai asasi yang menyatukan masyarakat, seperti agama, akhlak dan tatanan keluarga, serta membuka jalan bagi merajalelanya ketakutan dan kekacauan. Akhirnya, ia menganggap Pencerahan, sebagaimana diungkapkan seorang penafsir, sebagai suatu “gerakan pemikiran manusia yang bersifat merusak.†1
Pemimpin-pemimpin gerakan merusak ini adalah para Mason [anggota perkumpulan Freemasonry]. Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, dan para pemikir anti-agama lainnya yang merekayasa jalan menuju Revolusi, seluruhnya adalah Mason. Kelompok Mason sangat dekat dengan kelompok Jacobin yang merupakan pemimpin Revolusi. Hal ini membuat sebagian ahli sejarah berpendapat bahwa adalah sulit membedakan antara Jacobinisme dan Masonry di Prancis pada masa itu.
Selama Revolusi Prancis berlangsung, permusuhan besar ditujukan secara terang-terangan terhadap agama. Banyak pendeta dihukum penggal kepala dengan pisau guillotine, gereja-gereja dihancurkan, dan terlebih lagi, ada pihak-pihak yang ingin memberantas habis agama Kristen dan menggantinya dengan sebuah agama menyimpang, agama penyembah berhala, agama simbol yang disebut “Agama Akal.†Para pemimpin Revolusi juga menjadi korban kegilaan ini, masing-masing mereka akhirnya kehilangan kepala mereka sendiri oleh pisau guillotine, yang dengannya mereka sendiri telah menghukum begitu banyak orang. Bahkan saat ini, banyak orang Prancis yang terus mempertanyakan benar tidaknya Revolusi tersebut merupakan sesuatu hal yang baik. Perasaan anti-agama dari Revolusi Prancis menyebar ke seantero Eropa dan, hasilnya, abad ke-19 menjadi salah satu babak propaganda anti-agama yang paling terbuka dan gencar.
Perang Melawan Agama di Prancis
Peran yang dimainkan kelompok Mason dalam Revolusi diakui oleh “agen provokator†bernama Count Cagliostro. Cagliostro ditangkap oleh Iquisition [lembaga pengadilan gereja Katolik Roma antara tahun 1232-1820] pada tahun 1789, dan membuat sejumlah pengakuan penting selama dimintai keterangan. Ia memulai dengan menyatakan bahwa para Mason di seluruh Eropa telah merencanakan serangkaian revolusi. Ia mengatakan bahwa tujuan utama kelompok Mason adalah menghancurkan Lembaga Kepausan atau mengambil alihnya.
Makar perkumpulan Masonry di Prancis tidak berhenti dengan Revolusi. Kekacauan yang muncul akibat Revolusi akhirnya dipadamkan saat Napoleon menduduki kekuasaan. Tapi, keadaan tenang ini tidak berlangsung lama; cita-cita Napoleon untuk berkuasa di seluruh Eropa hanya berujung pada akhir kekuasannya. Setelah itu, pertikaian di Prancis terus berlangsung antara pihak kerajaan dan pendukung Revolusi. Di tahun 1803, 1848, dan 1871, tiga revolusi lagi terjadi. Di tahun 1848, “Republik Kedua†didirikan; di tahun 1871, “Republik Ketiga†dibentuk. Di tahun 1881, Katolik tidak lagi menjadi agama resmi Prancis dan di tahun 1988 pelajaran agama dihilangkan sama sekali dari sistem pendidikan.
Kelompok Mason sangatlah giat selama masa pergolakan ini. Tujuan utama mereka adalah memperlemah Gereja dan lembaga-lembaga keagamaannya, menghancurkan nilai-nilai agama dan pengaruh hukum-hukum agama dalam masyarakat, dan menghapus pendidikan agama. Kelompok Mason memandang paham perlawanan terhadap kekuasaan kaum agamawan sebagai pusat gerakan sosial dan politik mereka.
The Catholic Encyclopedia [Ensiklopedia Katolik] memberikan keterangan penting tentang gerakan anti-agama dari Grand Orient, julukan bagi Masonry Prancis:
Dari surat-surat resmi Masonry Prancis yang dimuat terutama dalam “Buletin†dan “Laporan†resmi Grand Orient, telah dibuktikan bahwa seluruh kebijakan yang memusuhi kekuasaan kaum agamawan yang dikeluarkan di Parlemen Prancis telah diputuskan sebelumnya di pusa-pusat pertemuan kelompok Mason dan dilaksanakan di bawah arahan Grand Orient, yang bertujuan, sebagaimana dinyatakannya secara jelas, untuk mengendalikan setiap hal dan setiap orang di Prancis. “Saya telah mengatakan di majelis tahun 1898,†kata sang anggota dewan Massé, juru bicara resmi majelis tahun 1903, “bahwa adalah tugas terpenting Freemasonry untuk setiap hari terlibat lebih banyak dalam perjuangan politik dan anti-agama.†“Keberhasilan (dalam perang melawan kekeuasaan kaum pendeta) sebagian besarnya adalah berkat Freemasonry; sebab jiwanya, rencananya, caranyalah yang telah menang.†“Jika Blok ini telah didirikan, ini berkat Freemasonry dan berkat disiplin yang dipelajari di pusat-pusat pertemuan [Freemasonry]â€â€¦ “Kita perlu waspada dan yang terpenting saling percaya, jika kita hendak menuntaskan kerja kita, yang sejauh ini belum selesai. Kerja ini, Anda tahu…perang melawan kekuasaan kaum pendeta, sedang berlangsung. Republik ini harus membersihkan diri dari lembaga-lembaga keagamaan, menyapu bersih mereka dengan satu hantaman keras. Perencanaan setengah-setengah di mana pun berbahaya; lawan harus dihancurkan dengan sekali pukul. 2
The Catholic Encyclopedia meneruskan paparan tentang peperangan Masonry Prancis melawan agama:
Sebenarnya seluruh pembaharuan Masonik “anti-kekuasaan kaum agamawan†yang dijalankan di Prancis sejak 1877, seperti penghapusan pengajaran agama dari pendidikan, kebijakan menentang sekolah-sekolah dan badan-badan kemanusiaan Kristen swasta, pelarangan dewan-dewan keagamaan dan penghancuran lembaga Gereja, diakui berpuncak pada perombakan anti-Kristen dan anti-agama terhadap masyarakat manusia, tidak hanya di Prancis tapi di seluruh dunia. Dengan demikian Freemasonry Prancis, sebagai pemimpin seluruh gerakan Freemasonry, seolah meresmikan masa keemasan republik universal Masonik, yang meliputi persaudaraan Masonik dari semua manusia dan seluruh bangsa. “Masa Kejayaan Galilean,“ kata presiden Grand Orient, Senator Delpech, pada tanggal 20 September 1902, “telah berlangsung selama 20 abad. Tapi kini gilirannya dia mati… Gereja Katolik Roma, yang didirikan di atas dongeng Galilean, mulai mengalami keruntuhan dengan cepat sejak hari didirikannya Kelompok Masonik. 3
“Galilean†yang dimaksud kelompok Mason adalah Yesus, karena menurut Injil, Yesus lahir di kota Galilee di Palestina. Karena itu, kebencian kelompok Mason terhadap Gereja adalah sebuah luapan kebencian mereka terhadap Yesus dan terhadap semua agama yang mengakui adanya satu Tuhan. Dengan budaya materialis, Darwinis dan humanis yang mereka bangun di abad ke-19, mereka yakin bahwa mereka telah menghancurkan agama dan menghidupkan kembali Eropa dalam bentuk paganisme pra-Kristen [yakni agama politeistik atau agama selain Kristen, Yahudi dan Islam].
Saat kata-kata ini diucapkan di tahun 1902, serangkaian undang-undang di Prancis memperluas ruang lingkup penentangan terhadap agama. Tiga ribu sekolah agama ditutup dan memberikan pelajaran agama apa pun di sekolah dilarang. Banyak pendeta ditangkap, sebagian di antaranya diasingkan dan orang-orang taat beragama mulai dianggap sebagai warga kelas dua. Karena alasan ini, di tahun 1904, Vatikan memutuskan seluruh hubungan kenegaraan dengan Prancis, tapi hal ini tidak mengubah sikap negara tersebut. Dibutuhkan korban ratusan ribu jiwa orang Prancis yang melawan tentara Jerman di Perang Dunia I sebelum keangkuhan negeri itu ditundukkan dan Prancis mengakui kembali pentingnya nilai-nilai agama.
Seperti dinyatakan The Catholic Encyclopedia, perang melawan agama, sejak Revolusi Prancis hingga abad ke-20, dilancarkan melalui “kebijakan-kebijakan anti-pendeta yang dikeluarkan Parlemen Prancis†yang “diputuskan sebelumnya di pusat-pusat pertemuan Masonik dan dilaksanakan di bawah arahan Grand Orient.†4 Fakta ini tampak jelas dari tulisan-tulisan Masonik. Misalnya, sebuah kutipan dari terbitan Turki berjudul "A Speech Made by Brother Gambetta on July 8 1875 in the Clémente Amitié Lodge" [Sebuah Pidato yang Disampaikan oleh Saudara Gambetta tanggal 8 Juli 1875, di Pusat Pertemuan Clémente Amitié] berbunyi:
Sementara bayangan ketakutan akan tindakan balasan mengancam Prancis, dan doktrin agama serta pemikiran terbelakang melancarkan serangan melawan prinsip dan hukum sosial modern, di tengah-tengah perkumpulan yang terampil, berpandangan ke depan seperti Masonry yang menjunjung tinggi prinsip-prinsip persaudaraan, kita temukan kekuatan dan dukungan dalam perjuangan melawan kekuasaan Gereja yang kelewat batas, sikapnya yang dibesar-besarkan dan konyol serta tindakannya yang selalu berlebihan… kita wajib berjaga-jaga dan meneruskan perjuangan. Dalam rangka menegakkan gagasan tentang tatanan dan kemajuan manusia, mari kita bertahan agar perisai kita tidak dapat ditembus. 5
Dapat dicermati bahwa tulisan-tulisan Masonik senantiasa menampilkan gagasan-gagasan mereka sendiri sebagai “berpandangan jauh ke depan†sementara menuduh orang taat beragama sebagai “terbelakangâ€. Namun, ini hanyalah permainan kata-kata. Pendapat mengenai “bayangan ketakutan akan tindakan balasanâ€, yang disebutkan dalam kutipan di atas, adalah sesuatu yang juga ditentang oleh orang yang benar-benar taat beragama, tapi dimanfaatkan kelompok Mason untuk membidik agama yang benar dalam usaha mereka menjauhkan orang darinya. Selain itu, perlu ditegaskan kembali bahwa filsafat materialis-humanis yang dianut kalangan Mason sesungguhnya adalah takhayul, pola pemikiran terbelakang, warisan peradaban penyembah berhala Mesir Kuno dan Yunani Kuno.
Karenanya, penggunaan istilah seperti “berpandangan jauh ke depan†dan “terbelakang†oleh kelompok Mason dalam kenyataannya tidak memiliki dasar. Sungguh, hal tersebut tidak berdasar karena pertikaian antara kelompok Mason dan orang-orang taat beragama tidaklah lebih dari kelanjutan perseteruan antara dua pandangan yang telah ada sejak masa paling awal dari sejarah. Agamalah yang menyatakan yang pertama dari dua pandangan ini: bahwa umat manusia diciptakan dengan kehendak Tuhan dan bahwa umat manusia wajib menyembah-Nya. Inilah kebenaran itu. Pandangan yang berlawanan, yakni bahwa manusia tidak diciptakan, melainkan menjalani kehidupan yang tanpa makna dan tanpa tujuan, adalah yang dikemukakan oleh mereka yang mengingkari keberadaan Tuhan. Ketika dipahami secara benar, dapat ketahui bahwa penggunaan mereka akan istilah “terbelakang†dan “berpandangan jauh ke depan†tidaklah memiliki dasar.
Dengan memanfaatkan gagasan tentang “kemajuanâ€, kalangan Mason berupaya menghancurkan agama. "Catholic Encyclopedia" menyatakan:
Hal berikut dianggap sebagai cara-cara utama [gerakan freemasonry]:
(1) Menghancurkan sama sekali seluruh pengaruh Gereja dan agama terhadap masyarakat, yang secara licik dijuluki “clericalism†[“paham yang mendukung kekuasaan kaum agamawanâ€], melalui penekanan terbuka terhadap Gereja atau melalui sistem munafik dan menipu [yaitu] pemisahan antara Negara dan Gereja, dan sejauh mungkin, menghancurkan Gereja dan seluruh agama yang benar, yakni yang [bersumber dari] kekuatan di luar manusia, yang lebih dari sekedar aliran kebangsaan dan kemanusiaan yang tidak jelas;
(2) Mensekularisasi, melalui sistem “unsectarianism†[“ketidakfanatikanâ€] yang juga munafik dan menipu, seluruh kehidupan masyarakat dan pribadi dan, khususnya, pengajaran dan pendidikan umum. “Unsectarianism†[“ketidakfanatikanâ€] yang dimaksud oleh pihak Grand Orient adalah sectarianism [kefanatikan] yang anti-Katolik dan bahkan anti-Kristen, ateistik, positifistik [aliran filsafat empirisme yang lebih kuat], atau agnostik berbaju unsectarianism [ketidakfanatikan]. Kebebasan berpikir dan bernurani anak-anak haruslah dibangun secara tertata dan terencana dalam diri anak di sekolah dan dilindungi, sejauh mungkin, dari segala pengaruh yang membahayakan, tidak hanya dari Gereja dan para pendeta, tapi juga dari orang tua anak-anak itu sendiri, jika perlu, bahkan melalui paksaan jasmaniyah dan kejiwaan. Kelompok Grand Orient menganggapnya sebagai sebuah jalan yang mutlak diperlukan dan yang pasti tidak gagal menuju puncak berdirinya republik sosial universal. 6
Dapat dipahami bahwa Masonry telah melaksanakan sebuah rencana, dengan mengatasnamakan “pembebasan masyarakatâ€, yang tujuannya menghapuskan agama, sebuah rencana yang masih sedang dijalankan. Ini tidak boleh disalahartikan dengan sebuah tatanan yang mengupayakan hak bagi setiap warga negara dengan keyakinan agama apa pun untuk menjalankan agamanya secara bebas. Sebaliknya, tatanan yang dicita-citakan oleh Masonry adalah sesuatu yang berupa pencucian otak besar-besaran, yang dirancang untuk menghapus sama sekali agama dari masyarakat dan dari akal pikiran setiap orang dan, jika perlu, menindas para penganutnya.
AJARAN AGAMA ADALAH JALAN KELUAR DARI SEGALA KESULITAN MASALAH UTAMANYA ADALAH KETIADAAN AGAMA
Kebijakan Prancis untuk menghapuskan agama bermula di abad ke-18 dan terus berlangsung selama tiga abad; hasilnya telah mengubah negeri itu menjadi sebuah bangsa yang takut terhadap agama, ajaran agama, dan orang-orang taat beragama. Dalam beberapa tahun belakangan, dan sebagai akibat dari berjalannya [kebijakan] ini, kalangan Muslim dan berbagai anggota perkumpulan keagamaan telah diserang.
Akan tetapi, ketakutan ini tidaklah berdasar. Sebenarnya, bukanlah agama, namun ketiadaan agamalah yang seharusnya ditakuti. Ajaran agama membawa kedamaian, kebahagiaan, keadilan, dan sikap saling menghargai ke dalam masyarakat. Dalam masyarakat dengan kesadaran beragama yang kuat, tidak mungkin ada kekerasan, kemaksiatan, atau ketakutan. Dengan alasan ini, ketakutan Prancis terhadap agama tidak perlu ada. Dalam masyarakat di mana perang, pertikaian, kekerasan dan ketidakadilan merajalela, ajaran agama tidaklah ada.
Dalam masyarakat yang jauh dari agama, dapatlah dipastikan bahwa sebagian besar orang bersifat mementingkan diri sendiri, tidak adil dan kosong dari kebaikan akhlak. Hanya nilai-nilai agama yang menjamin kesempurnaan akhlak bagi masyarakat dan pribadi. Mereka yang beriman kepada Tuhan berperilaku penuh tanggung jawab, karena mereka hanya hidup untuk mendapatkan ridha Tuhan dan paham bahwa mereka akan mempertanggungjawabkan segala perbuatan mereka. Karena takut kepada Tuhan, mereka dengan hati-hati menghindari perbuatan, sikap, perilaku buruk yang tidak disukai Tuhan. Sebuah masyarakat yang dipenuhi orang-orang semacam ini akan menjadi masyarakat yang tidak mengalami masalah-masalah sosial.
Sebaliknya, orang tak beriman, yang tidak mengakui bahwa ia pada akhirnya akan diberi pahala atau dihukum akibat amal perbuatannya, tidak akan memberi batasan atas perbuatan jahatnya. Walaupun menghindari bentuk perilaku tertentu yang tidak disukai masyarakat, banyak orang tidak ragu melakukan kejahatan lainnya saat mereka terdesak, terdorong, atau memiliki kesempatan.
Dalam masyarakat di mana tidak terdapat agama, orang rentan melakukan segala macam perbuatan tidak terpuji. Misalnya, seseorang yang taat beragama tidak akan pernah menerima suap, berjudi, merasa dengki, atau berbohong karena ia tahu bahwa ia harus bertanggung jawab atas semua perbuatan itu di akhirat. Namun, seseorang tak beragama cenderung mudah melakukan semua itu. Tidaklah cukup bagi seseorang berkata, “Saya tidaklah taat beragama tapi saya tidak menerima suapâ€, atau “Saya tidaklah taat beragama tapi saya tidak berjudiâ€, sebab orang yang tidak takut pada Tuhan dan tidak percaya bahwa ia akan memberikan pertanggungjawaban atas dirinya sendiri di akhirat mungkin akan melakukan salah satu perbuatan itu ketika kesempatan atau keadaannya berbeda. Seseorang yang berkata, “Saya tidak taat beragama tapi saya tidak berzina†mungkin saja melakukannya di suatu tempat di mana perzinahan dianggap wajar. Atau seseorang yang berkata bahwa ia tidak menerima suap mungkin berkata, “Anak saya sakit dan hampir meninggal, karena itu saya harus menerima suapâ€, jika ia tidak takut pada Tuhan.
Sebaliknya, orang taat beragama tidak melakukan kenistaan serupa itu, karena ia takut pada Tuhan dan ia tidak lalai bahwa Tuhan mengetahui niatnya dan juga pikirannya.
Seseorang yang jauh dari agama mungkin berkata, “Saya tidak taat beragama tapi saya pemaaf. Saya tidak merasa dendam atau benci,†tapi suatu hari peristiwa tak diinginkan mungkin saja menyebabkannya kehilangan kendali-diri dan melakukan tindakan yang paling tidak diharapkan. Ia mungkin saja berupaya membunuh atau melukai seseorang, karena acuan perilaku yang ia pegang dapat berubah menurut lingkungan dan keadaan tempat di mana ia tinggal. Akan tetapi, seseorang yang beriman kepada Tuhan dan Hari Akhir tidak pernah menyimpang dari akhlak baiknya, apa pun keadaan atau lingkungannya. Akhlaknya tidaklah “berubah-ubah†namun tegar. Allah merujuk tentang akhlak mulia orang-orang taat beragama dalam ayat-ayat-Nya:
(yaitu) orang-orang yang memenuhi janji Allah dan tidak melanggar perjanjian, dan orang-orang yang menghubungkan apa yang diperintahkan Allah agar dihubungkan, dan mereka takut kepada Tuhannya dan takut kepada hisab yang buruk. Dan orang yang sabar karena mengharap keridhaan Tuhannya, melaksanakan shalat, dan menginfakkan sebagian rezeki yang Kami berikan kepada mereka, secara sembunyi atau terang-terangan serta menolak kejahatan dengan kebaikan; orang itulah yang mendapat tempat kesudahan (yang baik). (QS. Ar Ra’d, 13:20-22)
Dalam lingkungan tanpa agama, gagasan pertama yang akan terhapuskan adalah keluarga. Nilai-nilai seperti kesetiaan, ketaatan, kepatuhan, cinta, dan penghargaan, yang menopang keluarga, benar-benar ditinggalkan. Harus diingat bahwa keluarga adalah pondasi masyarakat dan jika keluarga runtuh, runtuh pulalah masyarakat. Bahkan negara tidak memiliki alasan untuk tetap ada, karena seluruh nilai moral yang menopang negara telah lenyap.
Lagipula, dalam masyarakat tak beragama, tidak ada lagi alasan bagi seseorang untuk memiliki rasa hormat, cinta atau kasih sayang terhadap orang lain. Hal ini mengarah pada kekacauan hubungan antar-manusia. Si kaya membenci si miskin, si miskin dengki terhadap si kaya. Kemarahan muncul terhadap mereka yang cacat atau miskin. Atau serangan terhadap bangsa-bangsa lain meningkat. Karyawan berselisih dengan majikan mereka dan majikan bersengketa dengan para karyawannya, ayah memusuhi anak dan anak memusuhi ayah. Penyebab pertumpahan darah yang terus-menerus dan “berita halaman tiga†di koran-koran adalah ketiadaan agama. Di halaman-halaman itu, setiap hari, kita melihat liputan berita tentang orang-orang yang tanpa pikir panjang saling membunuh karena alasan sangat sepele.
Sebaliknya, orang yang paham bahwa ia akan dihisab di akhirat tidak akan menodongkan senjata ke kepala orang lain dan menembaknya. Ia tahu bahwa Tuhan melarang manusia melakukan kejahatan, dan rasa takutnya pada Tuhan memastikan bahwa ia akan menghindarkan diri dari azab ilahi. Dalam Alquran, Allah memerintahkan manusia menghindar dari berbuat kerusakan.
Dan janganlah kamu berbuat kerusakan di bumi setelah (diciptakan) dengan baik. Berdoalah kepada-Nya dengan rasa takut dan penuh harap. Sesungguhnya rahmat Allah sangat dekat kepada orang yang berbuat kebaikan. (QS. Al A’raaf, 7:56)
Keberadaan nilai-nilai agama memunculkan perasaan cinta karena Tuhan. Rasa cinta ini memiliki pengaruh yang luar biasa baik dan bermanfaat bagi semua orang. Untuk mendapatkan ridha Tuhan, orang beriman menghibur diri mereka sendiri dengan cara yang paling mulia, dan saling mencintai dan menghormati. Secara umum, belas kasih, sikap menghargai dan rasa kasih sayang meliputi masyarakat.Dilingkupi rasa takut pada Tuhan, orang sama sekali menghindar dari menjerumuskan diri dalam perbuatan bejat atau jahat. Dengan cara ini, setiap jenis kejahatan yang sebelumnya tidak mampu dicegah berhenti seketika. Jiwa dan semangat agama melingkupi sekeliling.
Dalam masyarakat di mana agama tidak merasuk, sudah menjadi fakta yang diakui bahwa orang menjadi bersifat berontak dan membangkang serta mengambil sikap memusuhi negara mereka. Sebaliknya, bagi seseorang yang hidup mengikuti ajaran agama, perintah negara sangatlah penting. Jika diperlukan, seseorang akan mengorbankan hidupnya demi nilai-nilai ini. Bagi orang seperti itu, kepentingan negerinya selalu berada di atas kepentingan pribadinya. Mereka mempertahankan nilai-nilai agama dan melakukan yang terbaik untuk membelanya.
Dalam keadaan yang sedemikian mendukung, memerintah negara menjadi sangat mudah. Negara menjadi tempat yang aman dan makmur. Para penyelenggara negara memperlakukan warga negaranya dengan adil dan lembut sehingga perlakuan tidak adil pun berhenti. Sebagai imbalannya, mereka dihormati oleh warga negara itu. Negara-negara seperti itu sudah pasti meletakkan dasar mereka di atas pondasi yang tak tergoyahkan.
Dengan ketiadaan akhlak Islami, ayah menjadi musuh anaknya, dan sebaliknya, sesama saudara berselisih, majikan menindas karyawan. Pabrik dan perusahaan berhenti menjalankan usaha akibat kekacauan dan si kaya memeras keringat si miskin. Di dunia dagang, orang mencoba saling berbuat curang. Kekacauan, pertikaian dan kekerasan menjadi jalan hidup bagi anggota masyarakat. Alasan semua ini adalah karena orang tidak memiliki rasa takut pada Tuhan. Orang yang tidak takut pada Tuhan merasa bebas bertindak tidak adil, dan tidak ragu mengambil jalan paling keras dan kejam—bahkan membunuh. Terlebih lagi, tanpa merasa bersalah, mereka berani secara terbuka mengungkapkan ketiadaan penyesalan mereka. Sebaliknya, seseorang yang yakin bahwa ia akan menghadapi siksa abadi di neraka tidak akan pernah melakukan tindakan seperti itu. Ajaran Alquran menihilkan semua perbuatan tidak baik semacam itu. Semuanya diselesaikan secara sederhana, tenang dan dengan cara terbaik. Kesalahan putusan hukum tidak terjadi dan, sementara itu, kantor polisi dan pengadilan sulit menemukan kasus yang harus ditangani.
Pikiran damai dan tenang orang-orang di seluruh segi kehidupan membawa kemakmuran kepada seluruh masyarakat. Penelitian ilmiah berkembang, tak satu pun hari berganti tanpa adanya penemuan baru atau terobosan teknologi dan hasilnya dimanfaatkan untuk kebaikan bersama. Kebudayaan berkembang dan para pemimpin bekerja untuk kesejahteraan rakyat. Kemakmuran ini ada berkat pikiran manusia yang terbebaskan dari tekanan. Ketika pikiran tenang, seseorang dapat mengembangkan kemampuan berpikir yang lebih baik dan keadaan ini memperbesar ruang lingkup berpikir. Hasilnya adalah pemanfaatan kemampuan berpikir yang jernih dan tidak terbelenggu. Hidup dengan pijakan akhlak yang baik membawa kemakmuran bagi masyarakat; mereka berhasil dalam kegiatan bisnis dan dagang mereka. Pertanian dan industri berkembang. Di seluruh bidang usaha, terdapat kemajuan yang nyata.
Jalan keluarnya sudah jelas: kembali kepada Tuhan, Pencipta segala sesuatu, dan mencapai kebahagiaan dan kedamaian hakiki dengan berpegang pada agama yang Tuhan ridhai untuk kita. Tuhan telah memberitahu kita bahwa keselamatan di dunia ini adalah dengan kembali kepada agama dan telah memberi kabar gembira bahwa hamba-hamba-Nya yang ikhlas tidak akan merasa takut, selama mereka patuh pada-Nya.
Allah telah menjanjikan kepada orang-orang di antara kamu yang beriman dan yang mengerjakan kebajikan, bahwa Dia sungguh akan menjadikan mereka berkuasa di bumi sebagaimana Dia telah menjadikan orang-orang sebelum mereka berkuasa, dan sungguh Dia akan meneguhkan bagi mereka dengan agama yang telah Dia ridhai. Dan Dia benar-benar mengubah (keadaan) mereka, setelah berada dalam ketakutan menjadi aman sentosa. Mereka tetap menyembah-Ku dengan tidak mempersekutukan-Ku dengan sesuatu pun. Tetapi barangsiapa (tetap) kafir setelah (janji) itu, maka mereka itulah orang-orang yang fasik. (QS. An Nuur, 24:55)
Karena itu, dengan semua alasan yang sudah kami paparkan di atas, masyarakat Prancis harus mencari jalan keluar bukan dengan ketiadaan agama tapi dengan penerapan ajaran agama.Jalan keluar dari persengketaan yang berkembang, kekerasan yang meningkat dan ketimpangan ekonomi tidaklah terletak pada pembuangan agama; bahkan sebaliknya: harus dicari dengan upaya menyebarluaskan ajaran agama. Ketika suatu bangsa takut pada Tuhan, bertindak mengikuti hati nuraninya dan memperlihatkan rasa sayang, belas kasih dan sikap menghargai, tidak ada keraguan bahwa hal itu akan dengan mudah memberantas kekejaman dan kebobrokan dalam masyarakatnya.
Tags: harun yahya society
Friday, June 23, 2006
Cahaya Harold Bloom (dari Islamlib.com)
Cahaya Harold Bloom
Oleh Hamid Basyaib
19/06/2006
Yang menyatakan hal itu bukan dosen Jurusan Tafsir ataupun dekan Fakultas Dakwah UIN. Yang menegaskannya adalah Harold Bloom, profesor sastra di Universitas Yale, AS, dalam karya mashurnya, Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds. Ia menyanjung Quran dalam bab khusus tentang Nabi Muhammad, yang dinobatkannya sebagai salah seorang jenius sastra terbesar dalam sejarah.
Injil Ibrani, secara keseluruhan maupun bagian-bagiannya, merupakan teks yang sangat sulit dipahami. Injil Yunani (Perjanjian Baru) membingungkan dan (ayat-ayatnya) saling bertentangan. Sedangkan Alquran Arab ternyata sungguh terbuka dan jernih, sangat konsisten dan benar-benar koheren.
Muhammad adalah satu-satunya nabi yang dianggap jenius oleh Bloom. Pada Kristen ia bukan menyebut Yesus, melainkan Santo Paulus, penulis salah satu versi Injil. Dan pada Yahudi, ia bukan memasukkan Nabi Musa, tapi seorang tokoh dari masa sekitar seribu tahun Sebelum Masehi, yang oleh para sarjana hanya disebut �J� atau Yahwist.
Bloom, yang boleh dikata kritikus sastra (Barat) terbesar saat ini, secara khusus mengutip lengkap Surah An Nur ayat 35, sebuah puisi yang sempurna pada-dirinya, suatu mukjizat tapi alamiah, dan sama sekali tak mengandung unsur sektarian. Ia terutama takjub pada ungkapan cahaya-atas-cahaya (nur alannur) dalam surah itu.
Ceruk tempat cahaya-atas-cahaya bertahta, menurut tafsir Bloom, mungkin hati Muhammad; tapi pada akhirnya bisa hati siapa saja yang peka. Sebab, seperti disebut oleh ayat tersebut, Tuhan membimbing kepada cahayaNya siapapun yang Ia kehendaki. Pohon zaitun yang diberkahi dan merupakan sumber energi mahabening itu � minyak yang bercahaya cemerlang bahkan tanpa tersentuh api -- tidak tumbuh di Timur maupun di Barat. Ia bisa mekar di mana saja. Atau tidak di mana-mana. Ia ada di manapun dan kapanpun suatu wawasan yang jernih memancar.
Bagi Bloom, cahaya yang dilukiskan secara memukau itu tepat dijadikan lambang Alquran. Ia adalah bukti lain tentang status otentik Quran sebagai kitab bagi siapa saja, bukan hanya bagi muslim.
Mungkinkah Harold Bloom sendiri tepercik cahaya-atas-cahaya Boleh jadi. Dengan ulasan memikat tersebut, ia membuktikan bahwa kitab suci yang bukan rujukan agamanya itu dapat diapresiasi dengan jernih dan tajam. Kita bisa menambahkan: mereka yang sejak lahir menjunjung Quran sebagai kitab suci agamanya pun mungkin luput dalam memahami pesan-pesan pokoknya dengan jernih.
Orang-orang seperti Bloom, yang beragama Yahudi dan juga dikenal sebagai pakar agama-agama, mampu menangkap inti-inti pesan Quran. Mereka sanggup memilah inti dari anjuran maupun ketentuan-ketentuan temporal dan situasionalnya, yang kerap justru dianggap permanen dan bersifat legal. Kaum Muslim sendiri mungkin saja kehilangan wawasan dan daya tangkap yang persis terhadap inti pesan itu, dan justeru tertawan pada anjuran atau ide-ide Quran yang bukan merupakan inti pesannya sebagai pengarah langkah dan pedoman hidup.
Bloom menganggap kebangkitan spiritual Barat ditopang oleh tiga teks suci: Injil Yahudi (atau Perjanjian Lama, menurut perspektif Kristen), Perjanjian Baru, dan Alquran (inilah sebabnya ia membahas Quran dan Muhammad dalam buku yang mengulas sastra Barat itu). Ia heran mengapa orang Barat hanya membaca dua yang pertama, seraya sangat mengabaikan Quran � atau malah mengecamnya secara serampangan.
Ketika mereka kelak mulai mengikuti anjuran Bloom untuk membaca Quran, siapa tahu rekan-rekannya di Barat itu mampu membacanya secara setajam Bloom. Tapi kemampuan seperti itu lebih besar lagi kita harapkan terjadi pada pihak yang paling berkepentingan, yaitu umat Islam sendiri. Sebab, cara mereka membaca Kitab Suci adalah penentu wajah Islam hari ini juga esok. []
^ Kembali ke atas
Referensi: http://islamlib.com/id/index.php?page=article&id=1070
Oleh Hamid Basyaib
19/06/2006
Yang menyatakan hal itu bukan dosen Jurusan Tafsir ataupun dekan Fakultas Dakwah UIN. Yang menegaskannya adalah Harold Bloom, profesor sastra di Universitas Yale, AS, dalam karya mashurnya, Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds. Ia menyanjung Quran dalam bab khusus tentang Nabi Muhammad, yang dinobatkannya sebagai salah seorang jenius sastra terbesar dalam sejarah.
Injil Ibrani, secara keseluruhan maupun bagian-bagiannya, merupakan teks yang sangat sulit dipahami. Injil Yunani (Perjanjian Baru) membingungkan dan (ayat-ayatnya) saling bertentangan. Sedangkan Alquran Arab ternyata sungguh terbuka dan jernih, sangat konsisten dan benar-benar koheren.
Muhammad adalah satu-satunya nabi yang dianggap jenius oleh Bloom. Pada Kristen ia bukan menyebut Yesus, melainkan Santo Paulus, penulis salah satu versi Injil. Dan pada Yahudi, ia bukan memasukkan Nabi Musa, tapi seorang tokoh dari masa sekitar seribu tahun Sebelum Masehi, yang oleh para sarjana hanya disebut �J�
Bloom, yang boleh dikata kritikus sastra (Barat) terbesar saat ini, secara khusus mengutip lengkap Surah An Nur ayat 35, sebuah puisi yang sempurna pada-dirinya, suatu mukjizat tapi alamiah, dan sama sekali tak mengandung unsur sektarian. Ia terutama takjub pada ungkapan cahaya-atas-cahaya (nur alannur) dalam surah itu.
Ceruk tempat cahaya-atas-cahaya bertahta, menurut tafsir Bloom, mungkin hati Muhammad; tapi pada akhirnya bisa hati siapa saja yang peka. Sebab, seperti disebut oleh ayat tersebut, Tuhan membimbing kepada cahayaNya siapapun yang Ia kehendaki. Pohon zaitun yang diberkahi dan merupakan sumber energi mahabening itu � minyak yang bercahaya cemerlang bahkan tanpa tersentuh api -- tidak tumbuh di Timur maupun di Barat. Ia bisa mekar di mana saja. Atau tidak di mana-mana. Ia ada di manapun dan kapanpun suatu wawasan yang jernih memancar.
Bagi Bloom, cahaya yang dilukiskan secara memukau itu tepat dijadikan lambang Alquran. Ia adalah bukti lain tentang status otentik Quran sebagai kitab bagi siapa saja, bukan hanya bagi muslim.
Mungkinkah Harold Bloom sendiri tepercik cahaya-atas-cahaya Boleh jadi. Dengan ulasan memikat tersebut, ia membuktikan bahwa kitab suci yang bukan rujukan agamanya itu dapat diapresiasi dengan jernih dan tajam. Kita bisa menambahkan: mereka yang sejak lahir menjunjung Quran sebagai kitab suci agamanya pun mungkin luput dalam memahami pesan-pesan pokoknya dengan jernih.
Orang-orang seperti Bloom, yang beragama Yahudi dan juga dikenal sebagai pakar agama-agama, mampu menangkap inti-inti pesan Quran. Mereka sanggup memilah inti dari anjuran maupun ketentuan-ketentuan temporal dan situasionalnya, yang kerap justru dianggap permanen dan bersifat legal. Kaum Muslim sendiri mungkin saja kehilangan wawasan dan daya tangkap yang persis terhadap inti pesan itu, dan justeru tertawan pada anjuran atau ide-ide Quran yang bukan merupakan inti pesannya sebagai pengarah langkah dan pedoman hidup.
Bloom menganggap kebangkitan spiritual Barat ditopang oleh tiga teks suci: Injil Yahudi (atau Perjanjian Lama, menurut perspektif Kristen), Perjanjian Baru, dan Alquran (inilah sebabnya ia membahas Quran dan Muhammad dalam buku yang mengulas sastra Barat itu). Ia heran mengapa orang Barat hanya membaca dua yang pertama, seraya sangat mengabaikan Quran � atau malah mengecamnya secara serampangan.
Ketika mereka kelak mulai mengikuti anjuran Bloom untuk membaca Quran, siapa tahu rekan-rekannya di Barat itu mampu membacanya secara setajam Bloom. Tapi kemampuan seperti itu lebih besar lagi kita harapkan terjadi pada pihak yang paling berkepentingan, yaitu umat Islam sendiri. Sebab, cara mereka membaca Kitab Suci adalah penentu wajah Islam hari ini juga esok. []
^ Kembali ke atas
Referensi: http://islamlib.com/id/index.php?page=article&id=1070
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Artikel dari kelompok kajian Islam Indonesia
Rekomendasi Seminar NU Australia dan New Zealand: RUU APP Harus Ditunda dan Direvisi Total RUU APP ibarat membunuh nyamuk dengan bom. Mudharat atau kerusakan sampingannya jauh lebih besar dari manfaat atau hasil yang ingin dicapai. Dengan kata lain, walaupun yang disasar sebenarnya adalah pornografi media dan pertunjukan seks, RUU ini bisa menimbulkan dampak negatif yang luas terhadap budaya, seni, hidup, kerukunan, identitas kebangsaan dan tatanan sosial yang demokratik. Oleh karena itu, RUU ini harus ditunda dan direvisi total. Pokok pikiran itu terpapar dalam Seminar Mengkritisi RUU APP yang diselenggarakan dan diprakarsai Pengurus NU Cabang Istimew Australia dan New Zealand Perwakilan Victoria, yang diketuai Suaidi Asyari, tanggal 1 April 2006 bekerja sama dengan Indonesia Programs, Melbourne University dan Konsulat RI di Melbourne. Seminar itu menghadirkan budayawan Emha Ainun Najib, Anna Lumban Gaol (Monash University), Moh Yasir Alimi (antropolog, ANU), Atip Latiful Hayat (ahli hukum, Monash University, Persis), dan Tim Lindsey (pengajar fakultas hukum, Melbourne University) . Seminar tersebut dihadiri oleh lebih 300 warga Indonesia dari berbagai latar belakang organisasi, agama, etnis, mahasiswa universitas, kelompok pengajian di Victoria dan warga Australia yang bisa berbahasa Indonesia. Pornografi menindas masyarakat Dari kaca mata perspektif feminis, pornografi adalah bentuk kekerasan. Atau tepatnya kekerasan yang dierotisasikan (erotisized violence). Mayoritas korbannya adalah perempuan dan anak-anak. Sayangnya pornografi justru menjadi industri dengan angka pertumbungan dan laba yang terus meningkat 40% tiap tahunnya. Didalamnya perempuan diexploitasi, dijual murah dan tidak diberi suara. Oleh karena itu, menurut Anna, pornografi sebagai industri perlu campur tangan negara melalui undang-undang. Disinilah masalahnya dengan RUU APP. Alih-alih melindungi perempuan sebagai korban pornografi, RUU APP justru menyalahkan perempuan sebagai sumber masalah moralitas. Akibatnya RUU APP gagal melindungi perempuan sebagai kelompok yang rentan. Karena cakupannya yang luas, RUU APP, menurut Yasir, tidak hanya mengejar-ngejar pelaku dan media porno, tapi juga masyarakat secara luas. Bukan hanya membahayakan perempuan, tapi juga praktek sosial dan adat istiadat yang berkembang di masyarakat yang bahkan sudah menjadi identitas bangsa dengan mengancam kesenian seperti ketoprak, Tayub, Jaipong dan sebagainya. Oleh karena itu, RUU ini tidak hanya mengancam peta geografi sosial dan spiritual Bali, Papua dan NTT melainkan juga Jawa, Sumatera, Kalimantan, Sulawesi dan sebagainya. RUU ini tidak hanya mengancam religiusitas Hindu dan sebagainya tapi juga religiusitas dan praktek sosial masyarakat Muslim. Masalah RUU ini singkat kata tidak akan selesai hanya dengan mengecualikan Bali, Papua dan NTT yang sudah tegas menolak. Pergolakannya bukan akan terjadi di kantong-kantong Hindu atau Kristen, melainkan di kantong-kantong Islam sendiri, papar mahasiswa antropologi ANU yang juga international liason officer PCI NU Australia dan New Zealand itu. Walaupun mandi disungai, sendang atau sumur umum yang sudah menjadi praktek sosial ratusan tahun, masyarakat Jawa, Sumatara, Sulawesi, Sumatera dan Kalimantan adalah muslim yang relijius mendalam dan bermoralitas tinggi. Perempuan-perempuan yang menyusui anaknya di bis kota, pasar atau kereta api adalah perempuan yang mulai, berdedikasi dan bermoralitas luhur karena mereka anak mereka menjadi anak-anak yang tangguh, berakhlak mulia dan cerdas. Para pemimpin seperti Sukarno, Soeharto, Gus Dur dan bahkan SBY sendiri pasti pernah lahir dari praktek susuan seperti ini. Karena definisi yang tidak kompeten, sangat naif kalau menuduh mereka ini amoral, asusila dan melawan kehendak Tuhan. Berpotensi Fasis RUU ini juga berpotensi fasis dalam dua hal. Pertama, penjelasan dan konsideran RUU bertujuan untuk melindungi nilai-nilai ketuhanan. Hal demikian, menurut Yasir hanya ada dalam sistem negara yang menganut paham teokrasi atau negara agama, bukan negara Pancasila seperti Indonesia. Hal ini menurut Tim Lindsey, mengancam fondasi dasar dan tata negara, pluralitas bangsa, demokrasi dan hak asasi manusia. Demokrasi politik tidak dibarengi dengan demokrasi sosial. Aurat—atau bagaimana harus berpakaian--, tegas Cak Nun, sama seperti halnya shalat dan ibadah lainnya yang tidak perlu intervensi negara. Tuhan tidak perlu dibela dan juga diwakili dengan undang-undang atau kelompok tertentu. Biarlah soal aurat itu menjadi wilayah pendidikan, keluarga dan masyarakat. Kedua, RUU ini berpotensi mengembalikan fungsi negara seperti pada masa Soeharto. Negara memang boleh membuat aturan pada wilayah publikasi dan distribusi media mengenai pornografi. Namun, negara dalam RUU APP, tegas Cak Nun, diberikan kekuasaan yang besar untuk memutuskan mana pornografi yang dibolehkan, walaupun hanya untuk pendidikan dan kesehatan sekalipun. Pasal-pasal yang menyeramkan Rangkaian kegagalan diatas menjadikan pasal-pasal RUU APP tidak kreatif dan menyeramkan. Konsideran bagus, tegas Atif dari Persis, tapi batang tubuhnya harus dikritisi. Tidak rela pornografi menjadi berdaulat di negara sendiri, tapi juga tidak rela bila RUUnya seperti ini . Pasal-pasal harus dibuat persuasif dan loebih lembut. Pakai sniper saja Cak Nun menyarankan agar SBY, Agung Laksono dan Hidayat Nurwahid memimpin dan berbicara kepada rakyat menunda RUU ini, agar orang berSeminar dan pemerintah dan DPR membuat Tim yang lebih objektif dan plural. Untuk undang-undang sepenting ini, harus ada dialog dan perundingan agar tidak mengembangkan konflik baru. Hukum harus bekerja sama dan didasarkan pada budaya, sosiologi kemasyarakatan dan nilai-nilai yang berkembang. Daripada pakai bom, untuk menyasar tayangan televisi dan media cetak yang kebablasan, lebih baik pakai sniper saja. Caranya bisa seperti menghidupkan Badan sensor di masa lalu yang spesifik untuk masalah pornografi atau membuat aturan yang lebih spesifik seperti UU penyiaran, UU anti-pesta seks, UU tentang distribusi pornografi dan sebagainya. Dalam acara yang dihadiri Professor Arif Budiman, indonesianis, wartawan dan masyarakat Indonesia di Melbourne itu, Suaidi Asyari selaku koordinator acara dan juga ketua PCI NU Australia dan New Zealand Perwakilan Victoria mengatakan acara ini diselenggarakan sebagai kepedulian NU terhadap bangsa Indonesia. Suaidi juga memperkenalkan NU sebagai organisasi sosial keagamaan yang mengedepankan prinsip-prinsip Islam moderat.
Suaidi AsyariMIALS The University of MelbourneVictoria Australia
Suaidi AsyariMIALS The University of MelbourneVictoria Australia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
