tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11941842744355401952024-03-13T15:51:47.737+03:00Persepsi seorang muslim (Perceptions of a Muslim)Laman ini bertujuan memberi dan berkongsi ilmu yang penulis anggap dapat membetulkan salah faham atau maklumat yang salah dalam pelbagai perkara terutama yang melibatkan Islam dan Ummah Muslim seluruh dunia. Semoga Allah s.w.t. menolong kita semua dan memberi ganjaran yang setimpal untuk bekalan dihari Akhirat. Segala yang benar adalah dari Allah s.w.t. dan yang salah dan kurang tepat itu adalah dari kelemahan saya sebagai manusia (insan) itu sendiri.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-53390192696989219042009-06-07T11:03:00.000+03:002009-06-07T11:04:24.169+03:00"Islam and Liberal Democracy: Recognizing Pluralism,"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman'; "><p>Copyright © 1996 National Endowment for Democracy and the Johns Hopkins University Press. All rights reserved. This work may be used, with this header included, for noncommercial purposes within a subscribed institution. No copies of this work may be distributed electronically outside of the subscribed institution, in whole or in part, without express written permission from the JHU Press. This revolutionary publishing model depends on mutual trust between user and publisher.</p><p><span style="font-size:+1;">Laith Kubba, "Islam and Liberal Democracy: Recognizing Pluralism," Journal of Democracy 7.2 (1996) 86-89</span></p><hr /><p>In their respective essays, Bernard Lewis and Robin Wright ask how much capacity Muslim societies have for movement toward democracy, and how far democracy and Islam are compatible. Lewis broaches these questions by considering the practice of Islam among Muslims at large, while Wright concentrates on the views of two contemporary Muslim thinkers.</p><p>The question of Islam's compatibility with liberal democracy can be viewed from varying perspectives. Current controversies among both Muslims and Westerners about the relationship between Islam as a revealed scriptural religion and democracy as a specific form of modern government imply that Islam promotes a specific format for politics and government. They imply as well that most of the governments under which Muslims have lived so far have been founded on Islamic principles. In many respects, it can be easily shown that neither the way of life of most Muslims nor the bulk of current Islamic writings is compatible with liberal democracy.</p><p>Islam teaches principles of freedom, human dignity, equality, governance by contract, popular sovereignty, and the rule of law that are compatible with but not identical to the cognate principles that belong to the intellectual heritage of liberal democracy. A look at history suggests that the main obstacles facing Muslims in their attempts to achieve open political systems and democratic governments are 1) a deeply rooted authoritarian political culture, and 2) manipulated interpretations of the Koran. [End Page 86]</p><p>The prospects for liberal democracy in Muslim countries can best be gauged by examining the development of their political culture. While the democratic polities of the West have their roots in a centuries-long process of evolution, modern political systems in Muslim countries have undergone a series of abrupt changes since the end of the old caliphate in 1924 and the coming of independence in the post World War II era.</p><p><strong>Cultures and Traditions</strong></p><p>Because Muslims often consider the early traditions of Islam to be part of the original message of revelation, they typically look to the way Muslims lived in the past rather than attempt to construct new ways based on both the original teachings of Islam and the realities of modern life. Although the meaning of Islam cannot be limited to the perceptions of Muslims or equated with their practices, neither can it be understood separately from these perceptions and practices.</p><p>Islamic teachings have shaped the history and political culture of hundreds of millions of people over fourteen centuries, and have embraced a vast range of nations, cultures, sects, and schools of thought. Islam is potentially available to be claimed by all Muslims, including modernists and traditionalists, conservatives and liberals, rulers and oppositionists, Sunnis and Shi'ites, and so on. While it is true that Muslim rulers since the days of the caliphs have sought legitimacy from Islamic tradition, it is also true that this same stream of tradition has been invoked to empower opposition groups, justify violent takeovers, mobilize the masses in national struggles, call for "holy wars," and more.</p><p>From earliest times, tribalism has marked Muslim political life. Later there came a chronic tendency to underappreciate constitutional and representative governance, and a consequent difficulty in developing democratic institutions and safeguards such as checks and balances. Historically, Muslims neither participated in choosing their rulers nor had a right to representation in government. Groups or individuals who seized power by force seldom met much in the way of popular resistance. This political passivity has its roots in religious teachings, and has gone far to perpetuate the tradition of authoritarian government in the Islamic world.</p><p>There were always Muslim thinkers who criticized overly narrow interpretations of the Koran and the negative side of traditional practices, but none ever had much success. Soroush and the many other thinkers who are striving on behalf of a broader and more enlightened understanding of the Islamic message belong to this line. Ghannouchi, meanwhile, like other leaders of Islamic parties, is attempting to go beyond dogma, ritual, rulings, and accidents of historical circumstance to outline a conceptual framework in which Islam's basic understandings [End Page 87] are elaborated and brought together in new ways in order to form a cohesive worldview that transcends classical limits on the interpretation of the Koran. Like their tenth-century predecessors who pondered religious questions and commented on the works of the great Greek philosophers, the new thinkers may be expected to have a limited effect on traditions of religious interpretation, and even less on the power structures and political attitudes of their own day.</p><p>The increasing numbers of Islamists who adhere to a modern interpretation of Islam form a loose-knit group with little chance of making an impact in the short term. The long term is a different matter, however. Given time, these Islamists could become a stabilizing and constructive force with great capacities for developing public institutions and modernizing Muslim societies. Although liberal Islamists are part of the mainstream of the Islamic movement, their presence has not yet been institutionalized. They receive neither support from governments nor endorsement from the traditional or radical political groups. Traditionalists see them as "Westernized," radicals see them as "compromised," and authoritarian rulers see them as "dangerous."</p><p><strong>Interpretations and Manipulations</strong></p><p>The turbulence and unrest that have touched so many Muslim countries in recent years have been forcing Muslim thinkers to reassess the whole of their heritage and question their own understanding of Islam. This is not without risk. Fundamentalism, with its promise of a simple answer to the complex problems of the Muslim world, grew out of such reassessment. Yet the experience of Iran and the Sudan has shown that fundamentalism-in-power cannot solve every problem, and actually complicates the challenge of implementing Islamic values in public life.</p><p>Although Muslims believe that the Koran is the only source of divine revelation (a revelation explained and implemented by the Prophet Mohammed), history has witnessed Muslims differing among themselves on questions of who rightly possesses authority, meaning both the right to interpret Islam and the right to rule other Muslims. The first generation of Muslims did not agree on a single procedure for electing a caliph, which led to violent takeovers and internal wars.</p><p>Today, Islam is interpreted by theological schools that have a limited role in running public institutions. Since these schools are apolitical by tradition, the interpretation of the political aspects of Islam has recently been claimed by combinations of activist clerics and political groups. Recent attempts by religious leaders or Islamic parties to implement Islam in public life have produced dismal results. These failures, in turn, have sparked debate among Islamists about the possibility of interpreting Islamic values in ways compatible with democracy, human rights, and [End Page 88] political pluralism. This debate was long overdue, for it was the absence of genuine scholarly discourse concerning the relationship between Islam and democratic politics that gave the most vocal and politicized groups a free hand to interpret the political and social dimensions of Islam in ways that served their own political agendas--a phenomenon seen most prominently in Iran, Algeria, Afghanistan, Egypt, and the Sudan.</p><p>Incumbent governments throughout the Muslim world are reacting to the challenges of defining Islam's role in public life by setting up subservient religious bodies with designated authority to interpret Islam. In a move clearly designed to defuse the use of Islam by the opposition, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia recently set up a council of ulema (religious scholars) under the supervision of his brother Prince Sultan. Recently, King Hassan II of Morocco expressed his concern about the strife between Islamists and the government in Algeria and proposed the establishment of a supreme Islamic religious authority similar to the Vatican. Another example comes from Iran, where, following the recent death of Grand Ayatollah Araki, the Islamic Republic decided to name the head of the state to the post, thus combining religious and political authority unambiguously in one personage.</p><p>The stance that politicized Islamic movements take on the issues of accountable governance and modernization can often be hard to pin down. Often, rival Islamist groups work at cross-purposes and prevent their countries from developing sound political and economic programs. In order to accommodate the diversity of opinion among Muslims, the Islamists will have to learn to accept a system based on pluralism, democracy, and the separation of public administration from theological institutions. The Islamic parties in Turkey and Malaysia already seem to have learned this lesson. Islamic values have great potential to contribute to the overall development of the Muslim world, but only if they can be cultivated in ways that do not undermine prospects for democracy.</p><p>The inevitable advance of technology is bound to have a dramatic impact on all cultures, Muslim cultures included. New means of rapid, accessible, and long-distance communication mean that followers of Islam will interact with one another and with people from other backgrounds at an unprecedented rate. As Muslims devise strategies for economic growth in a competitive world and redefine their priorities, their outlook will shift from the abstract concepts and values of Islam to the realities of the Muslim world. They will continue to turn to Islam as a source of personal and communal identity and moral guidance, but they will also critically assess the legacy handed down by previous generations who may have narrowed Islam in ways that had less to do with the essence of the faith than with historical accidents and parochial circumstances. The way to a better future lies through the recognition of pluralism, the adoption of open political systems, and the establishment of democratic governments throughout the Islamic world.</p><hr /><p><em>Laith Kubba is director of the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue in London. He was an organizer of the Iraqi National Congress, founded in 1992 at Vienna, Austria, by more than 70 delegates from 33 groups opposed to the regime of Saddam Hussein. He was previously director of the Arabic weekly Alalam and the English monthly Africa Events.</em></p><p><em>http://calliope.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v007/7.2kubba.html</em></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-86058510205860062562009-06-07T10:58:00.000+03:002009-06-07T11:01:07.658+03:00Islam and the Challenge<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman'; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 14px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 14px; "><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:130%;">Can individual rights and popular sovereignty <br />take root in faith?</span><p><span style="font-family:Arial Black;font-size:130%;">Khaled Abou El Fadl</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Webdings;font-size:130%;">8</span><span style="font-family:Webdings;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;"> A Muslim jurist writing a few centuries ago on the subject of Islam and government would have commenced his treatise by distinguishing three types of political systems. The first he would have described as a natural system—like a primitive state of nature, an uncivilized, anarchic world where the most powerful tyrannize the rest. Instead of law there would be custom; instead of government there would be tribal elders who would be obeyed only as long as they remained the strongest.</span></span><span style="font-family:Webdings;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;"></span></span></p><span style="font-family:Webdings;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;"><p>The jurist would then describe a second system, ruled by a prince or king whose word is the law. Because the law is fixed by the arbitrary will of the ruler and the people obey out of necessity or compulsion, this system, too, is tyrannical and illegitimate.</p><p>The third and best system would have been the caliphate, based on Shari‘ah law—the body of Muslim religious law founded on the Qur’an and the conduct and statements of the Prophet. Shari‘ah law, according to Muslim jurists, fulfills the criteria of justice and legitimacy and binds governed and governor alike. Because it is based on the rule of law and thus deprives human beings of arbitrary authority over other human beings, the caliphate system was considered superior to any other.</p><p>In espousing the rule of law and limited government, classical Muslim scholars embraced core elements of modern democratic practice. Limited government and the rule of law, however, are only two elements of the system of government with the most compelling claim to legitimacy today. Democracy’s moral power lies in the idea that the citizens of a nation are the sovereign, and—in modern representative democracies—they express their sovereign will by electing representatives. In a democracy, the people are the source of the law and the law in turn is to ensure fundamental rights that protect the well-being and interests of the individual members of the sovereign.</p><p>For Islam, democracy poses a formidable challenge. Muslim jurists argued that law made by a sovereign monarch is illegitimate because it substitutes human authority for God’s sovereignty. But law made by sovereign citizens faces the same problem of legitimacy. In Islam, God is the only sovereign and ultimate source of legitimate law. How, then, can a democratic conception of the people’s authority be reconciled with an Islamic understanding of God’s authority?</p><p>Answering this question is extraordinarily important but also extraordinarily difficult, for both political and conceptual reasons. On the political side, it must be said at the outset that democracy faces a number of practical hurdles in Islamic countries—authoritarian political traditions, a history of colonial and imperial rule, and state domination of economy and society. But philosophical and doctrinal questions are important, and I propose to focus on them here as the beginning of a discussion of the possibilities for democracy in the Islamic world.</p><p>A central conceptual problem is that modern democracy evolved over centuries within the distinctive context of post-Reformation, market-oriented Christian Europe. Does it make sense to look for points of contact in a remarkably different context? My answer begins from the premise that democracy and Islam are defined in the first instance by their underlying moral values and the attitudinal commitments of their adherents—not by the ways that those values and commitments have been applied. If we focus on those fundamental moral values, I believe, we will see that the tradition of Islamic political thought contains both interpretive and practical possibilities that can be developed into a democratic system. To be sure, these doctrinal potentialities may remain unrealized: without will power, inspired vision, and moral commitment there can be no democracy in Islam. But Muslims, for whom Islam is the authoritative frame of reference, can come to the conviction that democracy is an ethical good, and that the pursuit of this good does not require abandoning Islam. <b><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;">Democracy and Divine Sovereignty</span></b></p><p>Although Muslim jurists debated political systems, the Qur’an itself did not specify a particular form of government. But it did identify a set of social and political values that are central to a Muslim polity. Three values are of particular importance: pursuing justice through social cooperation and mutual assistance (Qur’an 49:13; 11:119); establishing a non-autocratic, consultative method of governance; and institutionalizing mercy and compassion in social interactions (6:12, 54; 21:107; 27:77; 29:51; 45.20). So, all else equal, Muslims today ought to endorse the form of government that is most effective in helping them promote these values. <br /><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;">The Case for Democracy</span></p><p>Several considerations suggest that democracy—and especially a constitutional democracy that protects basic individual rights—is that form. My central argument (others will emerge later) is that democracy—by assigning equal rights of speech, association, and suffrage to all—offers the greatest potential for promoting justice and protecting human dignity, without making God responsible for human injustice or the degradation of human beings by one another. A fundamental Qur’anic idea is that God vested all of humanity with a kind of divinity by making all human beings the viceroys of God on this earth: “Remember, when your Lord said to the angels: ‘I have to place a vicegerent on earth,’ they said: ‘Will you place one there who will create disorder and shed blood, while we intone Your litanies and sanctify Your name?’ And God said: ‘I know what you do not know’” (2:30). In particular, human beings are responsible, as God’s vicegerents, for making the world more just. By assigning equal political rights to all adults, democracy expresses that special status of human beings in God’s creation and enables them to discharge that responsibility.</p><p>Of course God’s vicegerent does not share God’s perfection of judgment and will. A constitutional democracy, then, acknowledges the errors of judgment, temptations, and vices associated with human fallibility by enshrining some basic moral standards in a constitutional document—moral standards that express the dignity of individuals. To be sure, democracy does not ensure justice. But it does establish a basis for pursuing justice and thus for fulfilling a fundamental responsibility assigned by God to each of us.</p><p>Of course, in a representative democracy some individuals have greater authority than others. But a democratic system makes those authorities accountable to all and thus resists the tendency of the powerful to render themselves immune from judgment. This requirement of accountability is consistent with the imperative of justice in Islam. If a political system has no institutional mechanisms to call the unjust to account, then the system is itself unjust, regardless of whether injustice is actually committed or not. If the criminal law does not assign punishment for rape, then it is unjust, quite apart from whether that crime is ever committed or not. It is a moral good in and of itself that a democracy, through the institutions of the vote, separation and division of power, and guarantee of pluralism at least offers the possibility of redress.</p><p>We have a provisional case for democracy, then, founded on a fundamental Islamic idea about the special status of human beings in God’s creation. It is provisional because we have not yet considered the great challenge to that case: how can the higher law of Shari‘ah, founded on God’s sovereignty, be reconciled with the democratic idea that the people, as the sovereign, can be free to flout Shari‘ah law? <br /><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;">God as the Sovereign</span></p><p>Early in Islamic history the issue of God’s political dominion (<i>hakimiyyat Allah</i>) was raised by a group known as the Haruriyya (later known as the Khawarij) when they rebelled against the fourth Rightly Guided Caliph ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Initially supporters of ‘Ali, the Haruriyya turned against him when he agreed to arbitrate his political dispute with a competing political faction led by a man named Mu‘awiya.</p><p>‘Ali himself had agreed to the arbitration on condition that the arbitrators be bound by the Qur’an and give full consideration to the supremacy of the Shari‘ah. But the Khawarij—pious, puritanical, and fanatical—believed that God’s law clearly supported ‘Ali. So they rejected arbitration as inherently unlawful and, in effect, a challenge to God’s sovereignty. According to the Khawarij, ‘Ali’s behavior showed that he was willing to compromise God’s supremacy by transferring decision making to human actors. They declared ‘Ali a traitor to God, and after efforts to reach a peaceful resolution failed they assassinated him. After ‘Ali’s death, Mu‘awiya seized power and established himself as the first caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty.</p><p>Anecdotal reports about the debates between ‘Ali and the Khawarij reflect an unmistakable tension about the meaning of legality and the implications of the rule of law. In one such report members of the Khawarij accused ‘Ali of accepting the judgment and dominion (<i>hakimiyya</i>) of human beings instead of abiding by the dominion of God’s law. Upon hearing of this accusation, ‘Ali called upon the people to gather around him and brought a large copy of the Qur’an. ‘Ali touched the Qur’an while instructing it to speak to the people and inform them about God’s law. Surprised, the people gathered around ‘Ali exclaimed, “What are you doing? The Qur’an cannot speak, for it is not a human being!” Upon hearing this, ‘Ali exclaimed that this was exactly his point. The Qur’an, ‘Ali explained, is but ink and paper, and it does not speak for itself. Instead, it is human beings who give effect to it according to their limited personal judgments and opinions.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#1"><sup>1</sup></a><cs:11.000000><cs:></cs:></cs:11.000000></p><p>Such stories are subject to multiple interpretations, but this one points most importantly to the dogmatic superficiality of proclamations of God’s sovereignty that sanctify human determinations. Notably, the Khawarij’s rallying cry of “dominion belongs to God” or “the Qur’an is the judge” (<i>la hukma illa li’llah</i>or <i>al-hukmu li’l-Qur’an</i>) is nearly identical to the slogans invoked by contemporary fundamentalist groups.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#2"><sup>2</sup></a> But considering the historical context, the Khawarij’s sloganeering was initially a call for the symbolism of legality and the supremacy of law that descended into an unequivocal radicalized demand for fixed lines of demarcation between what is lawful and unlawful.</p><p>To a believer, God is all-powerful and the ultimate owner of the heavens and earth. But when it comes to the laws in a political system, arguments claiming that God is the sole legislator endorse a fatal fiction that is indefensible from the point of view of Islamic theology. Such arguments pretend that (some) human agents have perfect access to God’s will, and that human beings could become the perfect executors of the divine will without inserting their own human judgements and inclinations in the process.</p><p>Moreover, claims about God’s sovereignty assume that the divine legislative will seeks to regulate all human interactions, that Shari‘ah is a complete moral code that prescribes for every eventuality. But perhaps God does not seek to regulate all human affairs, and instead leaves human beings considerable latitude in regulating their own affairs as long as they observe certain minimal standards of moral conduct, including the preservation and promotion of human dignity and well-being. In the Qur’anic discourse, God commanded creation to honor human beings because of the miracle of the human intellect—an expression of the abilities of the divine. Arguably, the fact that God honored the miracle of the human intellect and the human being as a symbol of divinity is sufficient to justify a moral commitment to protecting and preserving the integrity and dignity of that symbol of divinity. But—and this is ‘Ali’s central point—God’s sovereignty provides no escape from the burdens of human agency.</p><p>When human beings search for ways to approximate God’s beauty and justice, then, they do not deny God’s sovereignty; they honor it. It is honored as well in the attempt to safeguard the moral values that reflect the attributes of the divine. If we say that the only legitimate source of law is the divine text and that human experience and intellect are irrelevant to the pursuit of the divine will, then divine sovereignty will always stand as an instrument of authoritarianism and an obstacle to democracy. But that authoritarian view denigrates God’s sovereignty.</p><p>I will further develop this argument below, but to make the case more compelling and accessible, I need first to lay a broader foundation for Islamic political and legal doctrines. <b><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;">Government and Law</span></b></p><p>If, as many Muslim fundamentalists and Western orientalists contend, God’s dominion or sovereignty means that God is the sole legislator, then one would expect that a caliph or Muslim ruler would be treated as God’s agent or representative. If God is the only sovereign within a political system, then the ruler ought to be appointed by the divine sovereign, serve at His pleasure, and implement His will. But just as the meaning and implications of God’s sovereignty were the subject of an intense debate in pre-modern Islam, so were the powers of the ruler and the place of law in circumscribing those powers. And some lines of argument in the debate resonate with modern democratic ideas. <br /><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;">Ruler and Ruled</span></p><p>It is well established, at least in Sunni Islam, that the Prophet died without naming a successor to lead the Muslim community. The Prophet intentionally left the choice of leadership to the Muslim nation as a whole. A statement attributed to the Rightly Guided Caliph Abu Bakr asserts, “God has left people to manage their own affairs so that they will choose a leader who will serve their interests.”<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#3"><sup>3</sup></a></p><p>The word <i>khalifa</i> (caliph), the title given to the Muslim leader, literally means successor or deputy. Early on Muslims debated whether it was appropriate to name the leader the Caliph of God (<i>khalifat Allah</i>), but most scholars preferred the designation Caliph of the Prophet of God (<i>khalifat rasul Allah</i>). But the Caliph—whether the Prophet’s successor or God’s deputy—did not enjoy the authority of either the Prophet or God whose powers of legislation, revelation, absolution, and punishment cannot be delegated to any other. But how much of the Prophet’s authority does the Caliph enjoy? And to whom does the Caliph answer?</p><p>If the Caliph’s primary obligation is to implement divine law, then arguably the Caliph answers only to God. So long as the Caliph’s actions are plausible interpretations of God’s mandates, then such interpretations must be accepted and the Caliph has fulfilled his duties to the people. Only God can assess the Caliph’s intentions, and—most Sunni jurists argued—a ruler is not removable from power unless he commits a clear, visible, and major infraction against God (i.e., a major sin).</p><p>Muslim jurists did not, however, completely sever the connection between ruler and people. In Sunni theory the Caliphate must be based on a contract (<i>‘aqd</i>) between the Caliph and <i>ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd</i> (the people who have the power of contract) who give their<i>bay‘a</i> (allegiance or consent to the Caliph): the Caliph is to receive the <i>bay‘a</i> in return for his promise to discharge the terms of the contract. The terms of the contract were not extensively discussed in Islamic sources. Typically, jurists would include the obligation to apply God’s law and to protect Muslims and the territory of Islam; in return the ruler was promised the people’s support and obedience. The assumption has been that Shari‘ah law defines the terms of the contract.</p><p>Who are the people that have the power to choose and remove the ruler? The Mu‘tazili<cs:11.000000><a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#4"><sup>4<cs:></cs:></sup></a><cs:11.000000> <cs:>scholar Abu Bakr al-Asam (d. 200/816) argued that the public at large must have this power: there must be a general consensus over the ruler and each person must individually give his consent.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#5"><sup>5</sup></a> The vast majority of Muslim jurists argued more pragmatically that <i>ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd</i> are those who possess the necessary <i>shawka</i> (power or strength) to insure the obedience or, in the alternative, the consent of the public.</cs:></cs:11.000000></cs:11.000000></p><p>The idea of the consent of the governed, despite its democratic resonance, ought not to be equated with conceptions of delegated powers or government by the people. Consent in pre-modern Muslim discourses appears to be the equivalent of acquiescence. Underlying these discussions is a certain amount of distrust towards the laity (<i>al-‘amma</i>): “They [the laity] tend to float with every ebb and flow, and maybe [the laity] will be more content with choosing [to the Caliphate] the wrong-doers instead of the righteous [rulers] . . .”<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#6"><sup>6</sup></a> This type of attitude was widespread among Muslim jurists, and considering the historical period in which they wrote—well before any experience with mass democracy or broad literacy—it is not surprising. As a result many of the concepts employed in political discourses suggest an idea of representative government but never fully endorse it. In the dominant paradigm both ruler and ruled are God’s agents (<i>khulafa’ Allah</i>) in implementing the divine law. <br /><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;">The Rule of Law</span></p><p>As noted above, an essential characteristic of a legitimate Islamic government is that it is subject to and limited by Shari‘ah law. Although this concept does offer support for the rule of law, we must distinguish between the supremacy of law and the supremacy of a set of legal rules. The two are quite distinct, and both are suggested in the Islamic legal tradition. Once again, Islamic political thought contains a range of interpretive possibilities. And once again, some of those possibilities resonate more strongly with democratic principles.</p><p>In asserting the supremacy of Shari‘ah, Muslim scholars typically were arguing that its positive commandments, such as punishment for adultery or the drinking of alcohol, ought to be honored by the government. But a government that declares its intention to abide by all the positive commandments of Shari‘ah may nevertheless manipulate the rules in order to obtain desired results. Under the pretense of guarding public modesty the government could pass arbitrary laws forbidding many forms of public assembly; under the guise of protection of orthodoxy it could pass arbitrary laws to punish creative expression; under the guise of protecting individuals from slander, it could suppress many forms of political and social criticism; and a government could imprison or execute political dissenters, claiming that they are sowing <i>fitnah</i> (discord and social turmoil). Arguably, all these governmental actions are Shari‘ah-compliant unless there is a clear sense of the limits imposed upon the ability of the government to service and promote even the Shari‘ah.</p><p>But the rule of law need not be taken to mean that government is bound by a codebook of specific regulations. Instead, it might be interpreted as requiring a government bound by processes of making and interpreting laws, and even more importantly as requiring that those processes themselves be bound by fundamental moral commitments—in particular to human dignity and freedom.</p><p>We find some evidence for this alternative conception of the rule of law in the pre-modern juristic literature. Jurists discussed the limits to be placed on the lawmaking power of the state, in part under the rubric of public interest (<i>al-masalih al-mursalah</i>) and blocking the means to illegality (<i>sadd al-dhari‘ah</i>). Both jurisprudential concepts enabled the state to extend its law making powers in order to fulfill a good or avoid an evil. For instance, pursuant to the principle of blocking the means, the lawmaker could claim that behavior that is lawful ought to be considered unlawful because it leads to the commission of illegal acts. In essence, both public interest and blocking the means made law more flexible and adaptive. Of course, they could be employed to expand the law not only in the service of the public good but at the expense of individual autonomy as well. In particular, blocking the means to evil, founded on the idea of preventive or precautionary measures (<i>al-ihtiyat</i>), could be exploited to expand the power of the state under the guise of protecting the Shari‘ah. This type of dynamic can be avoided in part by adopting procedural guarantees, but more importantly by understanding that the rule of law is as ensuring the dignity and freedoms of human beings, which the Shari‘ah can be utilized to justify but not to undermine.</p><p>An important dimension to the challenge of establishing the rule of law is the complex relationship between Shari‘ah law, as articulated by jurists, and the administrative practices of the state or expediency laws (<i>al-ahkam al-siyasiyyah</i>). While in the first two centuries of Islam it was possible to find jurists citing the practices of the state as a normative precedent, this became increasingly rare. By the fourth/tenth century Muslim jurists had established themselves as the only legitimate authority empowered to expound the law of God. The practice of the state was not considered illegitimate, but only the Muslim jurists could settle the law. The state was expected to enforce divine laws, not to determine their content.</p><p>Still, as the enforcer of divine laws the state was granted broad discretion over matters of public interest (known as the field of <i>al-siyasah al-Shar‘iyyah</i>). State regulations were lawful and enforceable as long as they did not contravene the divine law, as expounded by the jurists, or constitute an abusive use of discretion (<i>al-ta‘assuf fi masa’il al-khiyar</i>). For this reason jurisprudential works meticulously documented the determinations of jurists but did not document state regulations, which were documented by state functionaries in works on the administrative practices of the state. In the dictum of Muslim jurists, Shari‘ah is considered the foundation of law and politics is its protector. (Similarly, Muslim jurists often would assert that religion is the foundation and the political authorities are its protector.) This paradigm, however, leaves unresolved the core problem of how to clearly delineate the limits of government power. To what extent can the government extend the reach of its laws under the guise of guarding or properly fulfilling purposes of Shari‘ah?</p><p>Concerns about the reach of the government’s power under Shari‘ah have antecedents in Islamic history and so, by the standards of the modern age, this is not an entirely novel issue. But such concerns are nearly absent from the framework of contemporary Islamists. To date, Islamist models, whether in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, have endowed the state with legislative power over the divine law. For instance, the claim of precautionary measures (blocking the means) is used today in Saudi Arabia to justify a wide range of restrictive laws against women, including the prohibition against driving cars. This is a relatively novel invention in Islamic state practices and in many instances amounts to the use of Shari‘ah to undermine Shari‘ah.</p><p>Traditionally, Muslim jurists insisted that the rulers ought to consult with the jurists on all matters related to law, but the jurists themselves never demanded the right to rule the Islamic state directly. In fact, until recently neither Sunni nor Shi‘i jurists ever assumed direct rule in the political sphere.<cs:11.000000><a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#7"><sup>7<cs:></cs:></sup></a> Throughout Islamic history the jurists (<i>‘ulama</i>) performed a wide range of economic, political, and administrative functions but most importantly acted as negotiative mediators between the ruling classes and the laity. As Afaf Marsot states: “[The <i>‘ulama</i>] were the purveyors of Islam, the guardians of its tradition, the depository of ancestral wisdom, and the moral tutors of the population.”<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#8"><sup>8</sup></a> While they legitimated and often explained the rulers to the ruled, the jurists also used their moral weight to thwart tyrannous measures and at times led or legitimated rebellions against the ruling classes. Modernity, however, has turned the <i>‘ulama </i>from “vociferous spokesmen of the masses” into salaried state functionaries who play a primarily conservative, legitimist role for the ruling regimes in the Islamic world.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#9"><sup>9</sup></a> The disintegration of the role of the <i>‘ulama </i>and their co-optation by the modern praetorian state, with its hybrid practices of secularism, have opened the door for the state to become the maker and enforcer of the divine law; in so doing the state has acquired formidable power that has further ingrained the practice of authoritarianism in various Islamic states. <br /><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;">Consultative Government</span></cs:11.000000></p><p>The Qur’an instructs the Prophet to consult regularly with Muslims on all significant matters and indicates that a society that conducts its affairs through some form of deliberative process is considered praiseworthy in the eyes of God (3:159; 42:38). There are many historical reports suggesting that the Prophet consulted regularly with his Companions regarding the affairs of the state. In addition, shortly after the death of the Prophet the concept of<i>shura </i>(consultative deliberations) had become a symbol signifying participatory politics and legitimacy. The failure to enforce or adhere to <i>shura</i> became a common theme invoked in narratives of oppression and rebellion. For example, it is reported that the Prophet’s cousin ‘Ali reproached Umar b. al-Khattab, the second caliph, and Abu Bakr, the first caliph, for not respecting the <i>shura</i>by nominating Abu Bakr to the caliphate in the absence of the Prophet’s family.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#10"><sup>10</sup></a> And the opposition to ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan (r. 23–35/644–656), the third Rightly Guided Caliph, accused him of destroying the rule of <i>shura</i> because of his alleged nepotistic and autocratic policies.</p><p>Although the precise meaning of <i>shura </i>in these historical narratives is unclear, the concept most certainly did not refer merely to a ruler’s solicitation of opinions from notables in society; it signified, more broadly, resistance to autocracy, government by force, or oppression. This is consistent with the juristic hostility towards despotism (<i>al-istibdad</i>) and whimsical and autocratic governance (<i>al-hukm bi’l hawa wa al-tasallut</i>). Even when Muslim jurists prohibited rebellions against despotic rulers, they tolerated despotism as a necessary evil, not as a desirable good.</p><p>After the third/ninth century the concept of <i>shura</i> took more concrete institutional shape in the discourses of Muslim jurists.<i>Shura </i>became the formal act of consulting <i>ahl al-shura </i>(the people of consultation), who according to the juristic sources are the same group of people who constitute <i>ahl al-‘aqd</i> (the people who choose the ruler). Sunni jurists debated whether the results of the consultative process are binding (<i>shura mulzima</i>) or non-binding (<i>ghayr mulzima</i>). If the <i>shura</i> is binding then the ruler must abide by the determinations made by <i>ahl al-shura</i>. The majority of jurists, however, concluded that the determinations of<i>ahl al-shura</i> are advisory and not compulsory. But, rather inconsistently, many jurists asserted that after consultation the ruler must follow the opinion that is most consistent with the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the consensus of jurists. Al-Ghazali expressed the general consensus when he said that “[d]espotic, non-consultative, decision-making, even if from a wise and learned person is objectionable and unacceptable.”<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#11"><sup>11</sup></a></p><p>Modern reformists have seized upon the ideal of a consultative government as a way of arguing for the basic compatibility between Islam and democracy. But even if the ethic of <i>shura</i> is expanded into a broader concept of a participatory government, concerns about majority tyranny underscore that the moral commitments informing the lawmaking process are as important as the process itself. So even if <i>shura</i> is transformed into an instrument of participatory representation, it must itself be limited by a scheme of private and individual rights that serve an overriding moral goal such as justice. In other words, <i>shura</i> must be valued not because of the results it produces but because it represents a moral value in itself. As a result, regardless of the value of specific dissenting views, dissent would be tolerated because doing so is seen as a basic part of the mandate of justice.</p><p>The Islamic tradition of legal-political thought, then, suggests ideas of representation, consultation, and legal process. But the precise content of those ideas remains contested and provides no direct link between Islam and democracy. To understand the democratic possibilities of Islam we must look more deeply into the role of human beings in God’s creation and the central importance of justice in human life assigned by the Qur’an. <b><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;">Justice and Mercy</span></b></p><p>Justice plays a central role in the Qur’anic discourse: it is an obligation we owe to God, and also to one another. In addition, the imperative of justice is tied to the obligations of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, and the necessity of bearing witness on God’s behalf. Although the Qur’an does not define the constituent elements of justice, it emphasizes the ability to achieve justice as a unique human charge and necessity—an obligation that falls on all of us in our capacity as vicegerents. In essence the Qur’an requires a commitment to a moral imperative that is vague but recognizable through intuition, reason, and human experience.</p><p>The Islamic debate about how government might serve justice is remarkably similar to seventeenth-century Western discourse on the state of nature or the original condition of human beings. One view—advanced by Ibn Khaldun and al-Ghazali—argued that human beings are by nature fractious, contentious, and not inclined towards cooperation. So, government is necessary to force people to cooperate with each other, contrary to their natures, and to promote justice and the general interest.</p><p>Another school of thought, exemplified by al-Mawardi and Ibn Abi al-Rabi‘, argued that God created human beings weak and in need so that they would cooperate by necessity; cooperation would limit injustice by restraining the strong and safeguarding the rights of the weak. Furthermore, God created human beings different from one another so that they would need each other to achieve their aims. In this school of thought, human beings by nature desire justice and will tend to cooperate in order to achieve it. Even if human beings exploit the divine gift of intellect and the guidance of the law of God, through cooperation they are bound to reach a greater level of justice and moral fulfillment. And the ruler ascends to power through a contract with the people, pursuant to which he undertakes to further the cooperation of the people with the ultimate goal of achieving a just society.</p><p>In reflecting on the demands of justice the juristic argument about human diversity and cooperation is especially important. The Qur’an says that God created people different and grouped them into nations and tribes so that they would come to know one another. Muslim jurists reasoned that the expression “come to know one another” indicates the need for social cooperation and mutual assistance in order to achieve justice (49:13). The Qur’an also notes that people will remain different from one another until the end of human existence. It also states that the reality of human diversity is part of the divine wisdom and an intentional purpose of creation: “If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one people, but they will not cease to dispute . . .” (11:118).</p><p>The Qur’anic celebration and sanctification of human diversity incorporates that diversity into the purposeful pursuit of justice and creates various possibilities for pluralistic commitment in modern Islam. That commitment could be developed into an ethic that respects dissent and honors the right of human beings to be different, including the right to adhere to different religious or nonreligious convictions. At the political level it could be appropriated into a normative stance that considers justice and diversity to be core values that a democratic constitutional order is bound to protect. Furthermore, it could be developed into a notion of delegated powers, where the ruler is entrusted to serve the core value of justice by ensuring rights of assembly, cooperation, and dissent. Even more, a notion of limits could be developed that would restrain the government from derailing the quest for justice or from hampering the right of the people to cooperate, or dissent, in this quest. Importantly, if the government fails to discharge the obligations of its covenant, then it loses its legitimate claim to power.</p><p>Unfortunately, however, several factors militate against the fulfillment of these possibilities in modern Islam. At the theological and philosophical level the constituents of justice have not been subject to close examination in Islamic doctrine. And part of the explanation for that limitation lies in a basic tension in understanding the nature of justice. Does the divine law define justice or does justice define the divine law? If it is the former then whatever one concludes is the divine law therein is justice. If it is the latter, then whatever justice demands is, in fact, the demand of the divine.</p><p>If we can know what justice requires by first determining what the divine law is, then there is no point in investigating the demands of justice—whether justice means equality of opportunities or results, or fostering personal autonomy, or maximizing collective utility, or guarding basic human dignity. If the divine law is prior to justice, then the just society is no longer about rights of speech and assembly, or the right to explore the means to justice, but simply about the implementation of the divine law.</p><p>Suppose instead that we accept the primacy of justice in the Qur’anic discourse, the notion of human vicegerency, and the idea that the duty to foster justice has been assigned to humanity at large. A reasonable conclusion would be that the value of justice ought to control and guide all efforts at interpreting and understanding divine law. This requires a serious paradigm shift in Islamic thinking. In my view, justice is a divine imperative, and represents the sovereignty of the divine. God describes God’s self as inherently just, and the Qur’an asserts that God has decreed mercy upon God’s self (6:12, 54). Furthermore, the very purpose of entrusting the divine message to the Prophet Muhammad was as a gift of mercy to human beings.<cs:11.000000><a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#12"><sup>12<cs:></cs:></sup></a><cs:11.000000><cs:></cs:></cs:11.000000></cs:11.000000></p><p>In the Qur’anic discourse mercy is not simply forgiveness, nor the willingness to ignore the faults and sins of people,<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#13"><sup>13</sup></a> but a state in which the individual is able to be just with him- or herself and others, by giving each individual person his or her due. Fundamentally, mercy is tied to a state of genuine perception of others—that is why in the Qur’an mercy is coupled with the need for human beings to be patient and tolerant with each other.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#14"><sup>14</sup></a>Most significantly, diversity and differences among human beings are claimed in the Qur’anic discourse as merciful divine gifts to humankind (11:119).<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#15"><sup>15</sup></a> Genuine perception that enables persons to understand, appreciate, and become enriched by the diversity of humanity is one of the constituent elements for founding a just society and achieving justice. The divine charge to human beings at large and Muslims in particular is, as the Qur’an puts it, “to know one another,” and to utilize this genuine knowledge in an effort to pursue justice.</p><p>On this view, then, the divine mandate for a Muslim polity is to pursue justice by adhering to the need for mercy. Although coexistence is a basic necessity for mercy, in order to pursue genuine knowledge of the other and aspire to a state of justice, human beings need to cooperate in seeking the good and beautiful, and do so by engaging in a purposeful moral discourse. Implementing legalistic rules, even if such rules are the product of the interpretation of divine texts, is not sufficient for mercy—genuine perception of the other—or, ultimately, for justice.</p><p>So principles of mercy and justice are the primary divine charge, and God’s sovereignty lies in the fact that God is the authority that delegated to human beings the charge to achieve justice on earth by fulfilling the virtues that approximate divinity.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#16"><sup>16</sup></a> This conception of divine sovereignty does not negate human agency by requiring a mechanical enforcement of rules; instead, it accommodates our agency and even promotes it insofar as it contributes to the fulfillment of justice. Significantly, according to the juristic discourses it is not possible to achieve justice unless every possessor of a right (<i>haqq</i>) is granted his or her right. The challenge for human vicegerents is to recognize that a right exists, to understand who is the possessor of such a right, and ultimately to ensure that the possessor enjoys the right. A society that fails in this task—no matter how many rules it applies—is neither merciful nor just. This puts us in a position to explore the possibility of individual rights in Islam. <b><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;">Individual Rights</span></b></p><p>All constitutional democracies afford strong protections to certain individual interests through rights of free speech and assembly, equality before the law, rights to property, and guarantees of due process. But which rights ought to be protected, and to what extent, is subject to a large measure of variation in theory and practice. Here I will suppose that whatever the precise nature of rights, some individual interests ought to be treated as unassailable. These unassailable interests are those whose violation communicates to the individual in question a sense of worthlessness and tends to destroy the faculty of a human being to comprehend the necessary elements for a dignified existence. So, use of torture and denial of food, shelter, or means of sustenance, such as employment, are always unacceptable.</p><p>To understand the traditional place of protected interests in Islamic law it is important to note that the purpose of Shari‘ah in jurisprudential theory is to assure the welfare of the people (<i>tahqiq masalih al-‘ibad</i>). Typically, Muslim jurists divided the welfare of the people into three categories: necessities (<i>daruriyyat</i>), needs (<i>hajiyyat</i>), and luxuries (<i>kamaliyyat</i> or<i>tahsiniyyat</i>). According to Muslim jurists the law and policies of the government must fulfill these interests, in descending order of importance—first necessities, then needs, then luxuries. The necessities are further divided into five basic values—<i>al-daruriyyat al-khamsah:</i> religion, life, intellect, lineage or honor, and property. But Muslim jurists did not develop the five basic values as broad categories and then explore the theoretical implications of each value. Rather, in a positivistic spirit, they examined existing legal injunctions that could be said to serve each value and concluded that by their codification of these specific injunctions, the five values would be sufficiently served. So, for example, Muslim jurists contended that the prohibition of murder in Islamic law served the basic value of life, the law of apostasy protected religion, the prohibition of intoxicants protected the intellect, the prohibition of fornication and adultery protected lineage, and the right of compensation protected the right to property. But limiting the protection of the intellect to a prohibition of alcohol or the protection of life to the prohibition of murder is hardly thorough. Unfortunately, it appears that the juristic tradition reduced these five values to technical objectives. Still, the broad values asserted could serve as a foundation for a systematic theory of individual rights in the modern age.<cs:11.000000><a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#17"><sup>17<cs:></cs:></sup></a><cs:11.000000><cs:></cs:></cs:11.000000></cs:11.000000></p><p>To be sure, the juristic tradition articulated a wealth of positions that exhibit an orientation toward protections for individuals. For instance, Muslim jurists developed the idea of presumption of innocence in criminal and civil proceedings and argued that the accuser always carries the burden of proof (<i>al-bayyina ‘ala man idda‘a</i>). In matters related to heresy, Muslim jurists repeatedly argued that it is better to let a thousand heretics go free than to wrongfully punish a single sincere Muslim. In criminal cases the jurists argued that it is always better to release a guilty person than to run the risk of punishing an innocent one. Moreover, many jurists condemned the practice of detaining or incarcerating heterodox groups even when such groups openly advocated and proselytized their heterodoxy (such as the Khawarij) and argued that such groups may not be harassed or molested until they carry arms and form a clear intent to rebel against the government. Muslim jurists also condemned the use of torture, arguing that the Prophet forbade the use of <i>muthla</i> (the use of mutilations) in all situations,<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#18"><sup>18</sup></a> and opposed the use of coerced confessions in all legal and political matters.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#19"><sup>19</sup></a> In fact, a large number of jurists articulated a doctrine similar to the American exculpatory doctrine—confessions or evidence obtained under coercion are inadmissible at trial. Interestingly, some jurists even asserted that judges who rely on a coerced confession in a criminal conviction are to be held liable for the wrongful conviction. Most argued that the defendant or his family may bring an action for compensation against the judge individually, and the caliph and his representatives generally, because the government is deemed vicariously liable for the unlawful behavior of its judges.</p><p>But perhaps the most intriguing discourse on the subject in the juristic tradition concerns the rights of God and the rights of people. The rights of God (<i>huquq Allah</i>) are rights retained by God in the sense that only God can say how the violation of these rights may be punished and only God has the right to forgive such violations. But all rights not explicitly retained by God are retained by people. And while violations of God’s rights are only forgiven by God through adequate acts of repentance, the rights of people may be forgiven only by the people. Thus, a right to compensation is retained individually by a human being and may only be forgiven by the aggrieved individual. Neither the government nor even God have the right to forgive or compromise such a right of compensation if it is designated as part of the rights of human beings.</p><p>Muslim jurists did not imagine a set of unwavering and generalizable rights that are to be held by each individual at all times. Rather, they thought of individual rights as arising from a legal cause brought about by the suffering of a legal wrong. A person does not possess a right until he or she has been wronged and obtains a claim for retribution or compensation as a result. To shift paradigms would require transformation of traditional conceptions of rights, so that rights become the property of individual holders, regardless of whether there is a legal cause of action. The set of rights recognized as immutable are those that are necessary to achieve a just society while promoting the element of mercy. In my view these must be the rights that guarantee the physical safety and moral dignity of a human being. It is quite possible that the relevant individual rights are the five values mentioned above, but this issue needs to be re-analyzed in light of the current diversity of human existence. In this context, the commitment to human rights does not signify a lack of commitment to God but is instead a necessary part of celebrating human diversity, honoring God’s vicegerents, achieving mercy, and pursuing the ultimate goal of justice.</p><p>Interestingly enough, it is not the pre-modern juristic tradition that poses the greatest barrier to the development of individual rights in Islam. Rather, the most serious obstacle comes from modern Muslims themselves. Especially in the second half of the last century, a considerable number of Muslims have made the unfounded assumption that Islamic law is concerned primarily with duties, not rights, and that the Islamic conception of rights is collectivist, not individualistic. Both assumptions, however, are based only on cultural assumptions about the non-Western “other.” It is as if these interpreters fixed on a Judeo-Christian or perhaps Western conception of rights and assumed that Islam must be different.</p><p>In reality, claims about both individual and collectivist rights are largely anachronistic. Pre-modern Muslim jurists did not assert a collectivist vision of rights or an individualistic vision. They did speak of <i>al-haqq al-‘amm</i> (public rights), and often asserted that public rights ought to be given preference over private entitlements. But this amounted to no more than an assertion that the many should not be made to suffer for the entitlements of the few. For example, as a legal maxim this was utilized to justify the notion of public takings or the right to public easements over private property. This principle was also utilized in prohibiting unqualified doctors from practicing medicine.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#20"><sup>20</sup></a> But as noted above, Muslim jurists did not, for instance, justify the killing or the torture of individuals in order to promote the welfare of the state or the public interest.</p><p>Perhaps the widespread assertion of a primacy of collectivist and duty-based perspectives in Islam points to the reactive nature of much contemporary discourse on Islamic law. But the notion of individual rights is actually easier to justify in Islam than a collectivist orientation. God created human beings as individuals, and their liability in the Hereafter is individually determined as well. To commit oneself to safeguarding and protecting the well-being of individuals is to take God’s creation seriously. Each individual embodies a virtual universe of divine miracles. Why should a Muslim commit him- or herself to the rights and well-being of a fellow human being? The answer is that God already made such a commitment when God invested so much of the God-self in each and every person. This is why the Qur’an asserts that whomever kills a fellow human being unjustly has in effect murdered all of humanity; it is as if the killer has murdered the divine sanctity and defiled the very meaning of divinity (5:32).</p><p>Moreover, the Qur’an does not differentiate between the sanctity of a Muslim or non-Muslim.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#21"><sup>21</sup></a> As the Qur’an repeatedly asserts, no human being can limit the divine mercy in any way, or even regulate who is entitled to it (2:105; 3:74; 35:2, 38:9, 39.38; 40:7, 43:32). I take this to mean that non-Muslims as well as Muslims could be recipients and givers of divine mercy. The measure of moral virtue on this earth is a person’s proximity to divinity through justice, not a religious label. The measure in the Hereafter is a different matter, but that matter is God’s exclusive jurisdiction. God will most certainly vindicate God’s rights in the Hereafter in the fashion that God deems most fitting. But our primary moral responsibility on earth is the vindication of the rights of human beings. A commitment in favor of human rights is a commitment in favor of God’s creation and ultimately a commitment in favor of God. <b><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;">Shari‘ah and the Democratic State</span></b></p><p>A case for democracy presented from within Islam must accept the idea of God’s sovereignty: it cannot substitute popular sovereignty for divine sovereignty, but must instead show how popular sovereignty—with its idea that citizens have rights and a correlative responsibility to pursue justice with mercy—expresses God’s authority, properly understood. Similarly, it cannot reject the idea that God’s law is given prior to human action, but must show how democratic lawmaking respects that priority. I have reserved the issue of Shari‘ah and the State for the end because it was necessary to first lay the foundation for addressing it. As part of this foundation, it is important to appreciate the centrality of Shari‘ah to Muslim life. Shari‘ah is God’s Way; it is represented by a set of normative principles, methodologies for the production of legal injunctions, and a set of positive legal rules. As is well known, Shari‘ah encompasses a variety of schools of thought and approaches, all of which are equally valid and equally orthodox.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#22"><sup>22</sup></a>Nevertheless, Shari‘ah as a whole, with all its schools and variant points of view, remains the Way and Law of God.</p><p>The Shari‘ah, for the most part, is not explicitly dictated by God. Rather, Shari‘ah relies on the interpretive act of the human agent for its production and execution. Paradoxically, however, Shari‘ah is the core value that society must serve. The paradox here is exemplified in the tension between the obligation to live by God’s law and the fact that this law is manifested only through subjective interpretive determinations. Even if there is a unified realization that a particular positive command does express the divine law, there is still a vast array of possible subjective executions and applications. This dilemma was resolved somewhat in Islamic discourses by distinguishing between Shari‘ah and <i>fiqh</i>. Shari‘ah, it was argued, is the Divine Ideal, standing as if suspended in midair, unaffected and uncorrupted by life’s vagaries. The <i>fiqh</i> is the human attempt to understand and apply the ideal. Therefore, Shari‘ah is immutable, immaculate, and flawless—<i>fiqh</i> is not.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#23"><sup>23</sup></a></p><p>As part of the doctrinal foundations for this discourse, Sunni jurists focused on the tradition attributed to the Prophet, stating: “Every<i>mujtahid</i> (jurist who strives to find the correct answer) is correct” or “Every <i>mujtahid</i> will be [justly] rewarded.” This implied that there could be more than a single correct answer to the same question. For Sunni jurists this raised the issue of the purpose or motivation behind the search for the Divine Will. What is the Divine Purpose behind setting out indicators to the divine law and then requiring that human beings engage in a search? If the Divine wants human beings to reach <i>the</i> correct understanding, then how could every interpreter or jurist be correct? Put differently, is there a correct legal response to all legal problems, and are Muslims charged with the legal obligation of finding that response?</p><p>The overwhelming majority of Sunni jurists agreed that goodfaith diligence in searching for the Divine Will is sufficient to protect a researcher from liability before God. Beyond this, the jurists were divided into two main camps. The first school, known as the<i>mukhatti’ah,</i> argued that every legal problem ultimately has a correct answer; however, only God knows the correct response, and the truth will not be revealed until the Final Day. Human beings for the most part cannot conclusively know whether they have found that correct response. In this sense every <i>mujtahid</i> is correct in trying to find the answer; however, one reader might reach the truth while the rest might mistake it. God, on the Final Day, will inform all readers of who was right and who was wrong. Correctness here means that the <i>mujtahid</i> is to be commended for putting in the effort, but it does not mean that all responses are equally valid.</p><p>The second school, known as the <i>musawwibah,</i> argued that there is no specific and correct answer (<i>hukm mu‘ayyan</i>) that God wants human beings to discover: after all, if there were a correct answer, God would have made the evidence indicating a divine rule conclusive and clear. God cannot charge human beings with the duty to find the correct answer when there is no objective means to discover the correctness of a textual or legal problem. If there were an objective truth to everything, God would have made such a truth ascertainable in this life. Legal truth, or correctness, in most circumstances depends on belief and evidence, and the validity of a legal rule or act is often contingent on the rules of recognition that provide for its existence. Human beings are not charged with the obligation of finding some abstract or inaccessible, legally correct result. Rather, they are charged with the duty to diligently investigate a problem and then follow the results of their own <i>ijtihad</i>. According to al-Juwayni, for example, what God wants or intends is for human beings to search—to live a life fully and thoroughly engaged with the divine. Al-Juwayni explains: it is as if God has said to human beings, “My command to My servants is in accordance with the preponderance of their beliefs. So whoever preponderantly believes that they are obligated to do something, acting upon it becomes My command.”<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#24"><sup>24</sup></a> God’s command to human beings is to diligently search and God’s law is suspended until a human being forms a preponderance of belief about the law. At the point that a preponderance of belief is formed, God’s law becomes in accordance with the preponderance of belief formed by that particular individual. In summary, if a person honestly and sincerely believes that such and such is the law of God, then as to that person it is in fact God’s law.</p><p>The position of the second school in particular raises difficult questions about the application of the Shari‘ah in society. This position implies that God’s law is to search for God’s law; otherwise the legal charge (<i>taklif</i>) is entirely dependent on the subjectivity and sincerity of belief. Under the first school of thought, whatever law the state applies, that law is only potentially the law of God, and we will not find out until the Final Day. Under the second school of thought, any law applied by the state is not the law of God unless the person to which the law applies believes it to be God’s will and command. The first school suspends knowledge until we are done living and the second school hinges knowledge on the validity of the process and ultimate sincerity of belief.</p><p>Building upon this intellectual heritage, I would suggest Shari‘ah ought to stand in an Islamic polity as a symbolic construct for the divine perfection that is unreachable by human effort. As Ibn Qayyim stated, it is the epitome of justice, goodness, and beauty as conceived and retained by God. Its perfection is preserved, so to speak, in the Mind of God, but anything that is channeled through human agency is necessarily marred by human imperfection. Put differently, Shari‘ah as conceived by God is flawless, but as understood by human beings Shari‘ah is imperfect and contingent. Jurists ought to continue to explore the ideal of Shari‘ah and to expound their imperfect attempts at understanding God’s perfection. As long as the argument constructed is normative it is unfulfilled potential to reach the Divine Will. Significantly, any law applied is necessarily a potential-unrealized. Shari‘ah is not simply a collection of <i>ahkam</i>(a set of positive rules) but also a set of principles, a methodology, and a discoursive process that searches for the divine ideals. As such, Shari‘ah is a work in progress that is never complete.</p><p>To put it more concretely: if a legal opinion is adopted and enforced by the state, it cannot be said to be God’s law. By passing through the determinative and enforcement processes of the state, the legal opinion is no longer simply a potential—it has become an actual law, applied and enforced. But what has been applied and enforced is not God’s law—it is the state’s law. Effectively, a religious state law is a contradiction in terms. Either the law belongs to the state or it belongs to God, and as long as the law relies on the subjective agency of the state for its articulation and enforcement, any law enforced by the state is necessarily not God’s law. Otherwise, we must be willing to admit that the failure of the law of the state is in fact the failure of God’s law and, ultimately, of God Himself. In Islamic theology, this possibility cannot be entertained.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#25"><sup>25</sup></a></p><p>Of course, the most formidable challenge to this position is the argument that God and His Prophet have set out clear legal injunctions that cannot be ignored. Arguably, God provided unambiguous laws precisely because God wished to limit the role of human agency and foreclose the possibility of innovations. But—to return one last time to a point I have emphasized throughout—regardless of how clear and precise the statements of the Qur’an and Sunna, the meaning derived from these sources is negotiated through human agency. For example, the Qur’an states: “As to the thief, male or female, cut off (<i>faqta‘u</i>) their hands as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment from God, and God is all-powerful and all-wise” (5:38). Although the legal import of the verse seems to be clear, it requires at minimum that human agents struggle with the meaning of “thief,” “cut off,” “hands,” and “recompense.” The Qur’an uses the expression <i>iqta‘u, </i>from the root word <i>qata‘a, </i>which could mean to sever or cut off, but it could also mean to deal firmly, to bring to an end, to restrain, or to distance oneself from.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#26"><sup>26</sup></a> Whatever the meaning derived from the text, can the human interpreter claim with certainty that the determination reached is identical to God’s? And even when the issue of meaning is resolved, can the law be enforced in such a fashion that one can claim that the result belongs to God? God’s knowledge and justice are perfect, but it is impossible for human beings to determine or enforce the law in such a fashion that the possibility of a wrongful result is entirely excluded. This does not mean that the exploration of God’s law is pointless; it only means that the interpretations of jurists are potential fulfillments of the Divine Will, but the laws as codified and implemented by the state cannot be considered as the actual fulfillment of these potentialities.</p><p>Institutionally, it is consistent with the Islamic experience that the<i>‘ulama,</i> the jurists, can and do act as the interpreters of the Divine Word, the custodians of the moral conscience of the community, and the curators reminding and pointing the nation towards the Ideal that is God.<a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html#27"><sup>27</sup></a> But the law of the state, regardless of its origins or basis, belongs to the state. Under this conception, no religious laws can or may be enforced by the state. All laws articulated and applied in a state are thoroughly human and should be treated as such. These laws are a part of Shari‘ah law only to the extent that any set of human legal opinions can be said to be a part of Shari‘ah. A code, even if inspired by Shari‘ah, is not Shari‘ah. Put differently, creation, with all its textual and nontextual richness, can and should produce foundational rights and organizational laws that honor and promote those rights. But the rights and laws do not mirror the perfection of divine creation. According to this paradigm, democracy is an appropriate system for Islam because it both expresses the special worth of human beings—the status of vicegerency—and at the same time deprives the state of any pretense of divinity by locating ultimate authority in the hands of the people rather than the <i>‘ulama</i>. Moral educators have a serious role to play because they must be vigilant in urging society to approximate God. But not even the will of the majority—no matter how well educated morally—can embody the full majesty of God. And in the worst case—if the majority is not persuaded by the <i>‘ulama,</i> if the majority insists on turning away from God but still respects the fundamental rights of individuals, including the right to ponder creation and call to the way of God—those individuals who constituted the majority will still have to answer, in the Hereafter, to God. <span style="font-family:Webdings;font-size:100%;"><</span></p><p></p><p align="center"></p><p><b>Khaled Abou El Fadl</b> is the Omar and Azmeralda Alfi Distinguished Fellow in Islamic Law at UCLA and author most recently of <i>The Place of Tolerance in Islam</i>.</p><p align="left"><br /><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:100%;">Notes</span></b></p><p><a name="1">1.</a> Muhammad b. ‘Ali b. Muhammad al-Shawkani, <i>Nayl al-Awtar Sharh Muntaqa al-Akhbar </i>(Cairo: Dar al-Hadith, n.d.), 7:166; Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, <i>Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari </i>(Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1993), 14:303.</p><p><a name="2">2. </a>Ironically, Shi ‘i and Sunni fundamentalist groups detest the Khawarij and consider them heretics, but this is not because these modern groups disagree with the Khawarij’s political slogans, but because the Khawarij murdered ‘Ali, the cousin of the Prophet.</p><p><a name="3">3. </a>’Abd Allah b. Muslim b. Qutayba (attributed), <i>al-Imama wa al-Siyasa, </i>ed. Zini Taha (Cairo: Mu’assasat al-Halabi, 1967), 21. This book is traditionally known as <i>Ta’rikh al-Khulafa’.</i></p><p><a name="4">4. </a>The Mu‘tazilah was a theological school of thought whose adherents called themselves <i>ahl al-‘adl wa al-tawhid </i>(the people of justice and unity). The school traces its origins to the thought of Wasil b. ‘Ata’ (d. 131/748) in Basra. The Mu‘tazilah are often described as rationalists for their emphasis on rational theology. They also considered justice and enjoining the good and forbidding the evil to be among the five basic principles of faith. The Mu‘tazilah’s five principles of faith were: (1) <i>tawhid </i>(believing in the unity and singularity of God); (2) <i>‘adl </i>(justice); (3) <i>al-wa‘d wa al-wa‘id</i> (the promise of reward and threat of punishment); (4) <i>al-manzilah bayna al-manzilatayn </i>(those who commit a major sin are neither believers nor non-believers); (5) <i>al-amr bi al-ma‘ruf wa al-nahy ‘an al-munkar </i>(commanding the good and prohibiting the evil).</p><p><a name="5">5. </a>Citing the precedent of the Prophet in Medina, al-Asam maintained that this included free Muslim women, but not non-Muslims nor slaves. Reportedly, upon migrating to Medina, the Prophet took the <i>bay‘a</i> from a number of native women as well as men. Muhammad ‘Imara, <i>al-Islam wa Falsafat al-Hukm </i>(Beirut: n.p., 1979), 431-432.</p><p><a name="6">6. </a>‘Imara, <i>al-Islam, </i>435.</p><p><a name="7">7. </a>After the evacuation of the French in Egypt in 1801, ‘Umar Makram with the assistance of the jurists overthrew the French agent left behind. Instead of assuming power directly, the jurists offered the government to the Egyptianized Albanian Muhammad ‘Ali.</p><p><a name="8">8. </a>Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid Marsot, “The Ulama of Cairo in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century,” in <i>Scholars, Saints, and Sufis, </i>ed. Nikki Keddi (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 149.</p><p><a name="9">9. </a>Daniel Crecelius, “Egyptian Ulama and Modernization,” in<i>Scholars, </i>167-209, 168.</p><p><a name="10">10. </a>Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, <i>Ta’rikh al-Khulafa’, </i>ed. Ibrahim Abu al-Fadl (Cairo: Dar al-Nahda, 1976), 109.</p><p><a name="11">11. </a>Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, <i>Fada’ih al-Batiniyya, </i>ed. ‘Abd al-Rahman (Cairo: Dar al-Qawmiyya, 1964), 186, 191; Muhammad Jalal Sharaf and ‘Ali Abd al-Mu’ti Muhammad, <i>al-Fikr al-Siyasi fi al-Islam: Shakhsiyyat wa Madhahib, </i>(Alexandria: dar al-jami’at al-Msriyya, 1978) 399-403.</p><p><a name="12">12. </a>Qur’an 21:107, which addressing the Prophet states: “We have not sent you except as a mercy to human beings.” Also, see Qur’an, 16:89. In fact, the Qur’an describes the whole of the Islamic message as based on mercy and compassion. Islam was sent to teach and establish these virtues among human beings. I believe that as to Muslims, as opposed to Islam, this creates a normative imperative of teaching mercy (27:77; 29:51; 45:20). But to teach mercy is impossible unless one learns it, and such knowledge cannot be limited to text. It is <i>ta‘aruf </i>(the knowledge of the other), which is premised on an ethic of care that opens the door to learning mercy, and in turn teaching it.</p><p><a name="13">13. </a>In Qur’anic terms, <i>rahma </i>(mercy) is not limited to <i>maghfira</i>(forgiveness).</p><p><a name="14">14. </a>The Qur’an explicitly commands human beings to deal with one another with patience and mercy (90:17) and not to transgress their bounds by presuming to know who deserves God’s mercy and who does not (43:32). An Islamic moral theory focused on mercy as a virtue will overlap with the ethic of care developed in Western moral theory.</p><p><a name="15">15. </a>This idea is also exemplified in a tradition attributed to the Prophet asserting that the disagreement and diversity of opinion of the <i>umma</i> (Muslim nation) is a source of divine mercy for Muslims.</p><p><a name="16">16. </a>Of course, approximating the divine does not mean aspiring to become divine. Approximating the divine means visualizing the beauty and virtue of the divine, and striving to internalize as much as possible of this beauty and virtue. I start with the theological assumption that God cannot be comprehended or understood by the human mind. God, however, teaches moral virtues that emanate from the divine nature, and that are also reflected in creation. By imagining the possible magnitudes of beauty and its nature, human beings can better relate to the divine. The more humans are able to relate to the ultimate sense of goodness, justice, mercy, and balance, which embody divinity, the more they are able to visualize, or imagine the nature of divinity, and the more they are able to model their own sense of beauty and virtue as approximations of divinity.</p><p><a name="17">17. </a>I would argue that the protection of religion should be developed to mean protecting the freedom of religious belief; the protection of life should mean that the taking of life must be for a just cause and the result of a just process; the protection of the intellect should mean the right to free thinking, expression and belief; the protection of honor should mean the protecting of the dignity of a human being; and the protection of property should mean the right to compensation for the taking of property.</p><p><a name="18">18. </a>Muslim jurists, however, did not consider the severing of hands or feet as punishment for theft and banditry to be mutilation.</p><p><a name="19">19. </a>A considerable number of jurists in Islamic history were persecuted and murdered for holding that a political endorsement (<i>bay‘a</i>) obtained under duress is invalid. Muslim jurists described the death of these scholars under such circumstances as a death of<i>musabara</i>. This had become an important discourse because caliphs were in the habit of either bribing or threatening notables and jurists to obtain their <i>bay‘a</i>.</p><p><a name="20">20. </a>Muslim jurists also asserted that specific rights and duties should be given priority over general rights and duties. But, again, this was a legal principle that applied to laws of agency and trust. Although the principle could be expanded and developed to support individual rights in the modern age, historically, it was given a far more technical and legalistic connotation.</p><p><a name="21">21. </a>Some pre-modern jurists did differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim especially in matters pertaining to criminal liability and compensation for torts.</p><p><a name="22">22. </a>The four surviving Sunni schools of law and legal thought are the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘I, and Hanbali schools.</p><p><a name="23">23. </a>I am simplifying this sophisticated doctrine in order to make a point. Muslim jurists engaged in lengthy attempts to differentiate between the two concepts of <i>Shari‘ah </i>and <i>fiqh.</i></p><p><a name="24">24. </a>Al-Juwayni, <i>Kitab al-Ijtihad, </i>61.</p><p><a name="25">25. </a>Contemporary Islamic discourses suffer from a certain amount of hypocrisy in this regard. Often, Muslims confront an existential crisis if the enforced, so-called, Islamic laws result in social suffering and misery. In order to solve this crisis, Muslims will often claim that there has been a failure in the circumstances of implementation. This indulgence in embarrassing apologetics could be avoided if Muslims would abandon the incoherent idea of Shari‘ah state law.</p><p><a name="26">26. </a>Ahmed Ali argues in <i>Al-ur’an: A Contemporary Translation</i>(Princeton University Press, 2001) that the word used in the Qur’an does not mean to amputate a limb, but means to “stop their hands from stealing by adopting deterrent means . . .” (113). Classical jurists placed conditions that were practically impossible to fulfill before a limb could be amputated.</p><p><a name="27">27. </a>In order for the <i>‘ulama </i>to play a meaningful role in civil society they must first regain their institutional and moral independence. <br /></p><p></p><center><span style="font-size:85%;color:#808080;">Originally published in the April/May 2003 issue of <i>Boston Review</i></span></center></span></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-62301485019673441722009-06-07T10:54:00.001+03:002009-06-07T10:56:32.787+03:00Islam's Compatibility with Democracy<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman'; "><p style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 64, 128); font-family: Garamond; font-weight: bold;"><img src="http://www.ijtihad.org/bismill2.gif" alt="bismill2.gif (1891 bytes)" /><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;"><b>T</b>wo extremely different groups, one from the West and one from the Muslim World, have been arguing vehemently that Islam and Democracy are incompatible. On one hand, some western scholars and ideologues have tried to present Islam as an anti-democratic and inherently authoritarian ethos that precludes democratization in the Muslims World. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><p><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;">By misrepresenting Islam in this way they are seeking to prove that Islam as a set of values is inferior to Western liberalism and is indeed a barrier to the global progress of civilization. This argument is also helpful to Israel, which regardless of its egregious human rights violations against Palestinians, continues to enjoy the reputation as the sole democracy in the Middle East. As a so-called democratic nation, Israel with its horrible record is preferred over Islam, which has an exemplary history of tolerance and freedom.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><p><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;">On the other hand many Islamic activists, using extremely broad, simple and sometimes crude notions of secularism and sovereignty, reject democracy as rule of Man as opposed to Islam which is rule of God. Islamists who reject democracy falsely assume that secularism and democracy are necessarily connected. Secularism is a liberal tradition not a prerequisite for democracy. Religion does play a significant role in democratic politics. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><p><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;">The contemporary US is a case in point. These Islamists also do not make a distinction between dejure sovereignty and defacto sovereignty. For example even though God is supposedly sovereign in Afghanistan, in fact it is the Taliban who are sovereign there. Those who think that Allah is sovereign in Taliban’s Afghanistan perhaps worship Mulla Omar. In order to understand the situation better one has to recognize the difference between sovereignty in principle and sovereignty in fact. Sovereignty in fact is always man’s whether in a democracy or an Islamic State. Rejecting democracy because man is sovereign is a big mistake. What we really need to worry about is how to limit the defacto sovereignty of man. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><p><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;">Democracy with its principles of limited government, public accountability, checks and balances, separation of powers and transparency in governance does succeed in limiting man’s sovereignty. The Muslim world plagued by despots, dictators and self-regarding monarchs badly needs the limitation of man’s sovereignty. The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy and its scholars have been working on these issues. They are not only exposing the politics behind the arguments made by those westerners who hold malice against Islam, but are also exposing the fallacies in the assumptions of those Muslims who misunderstand democracy and Islam. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><p><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;"><b>Is Islam Responsible?</b> </span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><p><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;">Secular fundamentalists believe that Islam and democracy are incompatible argue that in order to democratize the Muslim world needs to either discard the project of Islamization and liberalize or essentially reform Islam itself to accommodate democracy. This argument is based on one theoretical assumption that democracy and <i>shura</i> (Islam) are not compatible and one empirical assumption that Muslims strongly adhere to Islamic principles. But in order to argue that democracy is missing from the Islamic world because of Islam, it must be demonstrated that Muslims indeed practice Islam. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><p><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;">One of the primary motivations for the contemporary Islamic revival is the widespread belief, even consensus, among Muslims that their societies have strayed far away from Islam. A brief survey of adherence to the personal and public obligatory aspects of Islam such as establishment of prayer, fasting and charity, and establishment of justice, crime and corruption free virtuous societies; will reveal that Muslim societies are not only undemocratic but also un-Islamic. So why blame Islam if un-Islamic societies are also undemocratic? There are more nations in the Muslim world that claim to be democratic – Bangladesh, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt, Indonesia, Tunisia, Algeria, Nigeria -- than Islamic – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia and Sudan. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><p><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;">Half of the self proclaimed Islamic states also claim to be democracies. The point is simple; contrary to the claims otherwise, the democratic ideal is quite widely upheld in the Muslim world. Even prominent Islamic revivalists of the twentieth century like Maulana Maududi and Imam Khomeni have advocated the cause of democracy. Maulana Maududi was the first to write about the concept of a Theo democracy – a God centered democratic polity. And Imam Khomeini established separation of powers, a parliaments, elections and public accountability along with the institution of Vilayat-e-faqi after the Islamic revolution of Iran. Indeed there is nothing in Islam and in Muslim practices that is fundamentally opposed to democracy -- justice, freedom, fairness, equality or tolerance.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><p><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;">There are a few Muslims who reject democracy, but only do so because they falsely allow the modern West the ownership of a universal value. They reject democracy only because they reject the West. The large number of Muslims who came out to vote in the Presidential elections in the US and those Muslims who vote in hundreds of millions in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt and elsewhere testify to their comfort with democracy. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><p><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;">In the minds of these nearly one billion Muslims who practice some form of democracy there is no dispute between Islam and democracy. It is time we moved onto a more fruitful line of inquiry. If not Islam what has precluded the democratization of the Muslim world? There are structural failures in the Muslim societies due to the legacy of colonialism and the debilitating corruption that preceded and made the Muslim world colonizable. Can we find a way to remove these seeds of underdevelopment? If we can pinpoint the structural problems that prevent the political and economic development of the Muslim World it will accomplish a great task. Policy solutions sensitive to local conditions can then emerge to tackle the prevalence of underdevelopment. I invite all American Muslims to join us in this monumental endeavor.&nbs,p; I also invite those Islamists who are opposed to democracy to rise above id,eological po,sturing and work with us to develop a vibrant, open, prosperous and healthy Muslim World.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><p><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;">Once we create this open, Muslim society that has room for all visions of Islam, then we can return to debating each other about whose understanding of Islam is better. Until then let’s join forces to build a free Muslim society. Free from tyranny, poverty, corruption, illiteracy, injustice and also, we must not forget, from the humiliating domination of the West. We need to emancipate the Muslim world, from the self as well as the other.</span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 64, 128); font-family: Garamond;"><br /></span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 64, 128); font-family: Garamond;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'times new roman'; "><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:130%;color:#004080;"><em>M. A. Muqtedar Khan </em></span><span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;color:#004080;"><br />Published Wednesday April 11, 2001</span></span><br /></span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-46904188426489883772009-06-07T10:53:00.000+03:002009-06-07T10:54:16.783+03:00The Concept Of Democracy in Islam<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman'; "><p>Islam is a religion of peace and co-existence, wherein there is ample scope for freedom of expression. You can express your views even if you differ. The decision is arrived at through consensus in all important matters. Islam's superiority over other religions lies in the fact that it gives utmost importance to the opinion of the people. This fact is clearly illustrated in the Quran and the Hadiths. The Quranic verse 'Am Ruhum Shura-bai nuhum' (Chapter 42-Asura; verse 38)- whose affairs are a matter of consultation is an ample proof.</p><p>In order to understand the concept of democracy in Islam, one should have the knowledge of the Quran, the Hadiths and the Sunnah. Prophet Mohammed himself set a tradition by not appointing his successor during his lifetime and left it to the people to decide their leader. The first four Caliphs - Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali, known as Khilafat-e-Rashida (the Enlightened Caliphs), were the choice of the people. The Umayyat King Umar-bin Abdul Aziz also qualifies to be enlisted among the enlightened Caliphs because he refused publicly to accept the Kingship on the basis of his nomination by his father. He accepted the kingship only when the people elected him.</p><p>The misconception, that Islam cherishes dictatorship has its roots in the history of Muslim rulers. The Indian Mughal rulers, the Abbasid rulers of Baghdad, the Turkish and the Spanish rulers were not the real rulers as per the injunctions of the Holy Quran. They were mere Dynastic rulers.</p><p>Islam is not against 'change' but it is certainly against 'coercion'. The established Governments should not be replaced by resorting to erroneous methods but by going to the people and making them realize the shortcomings of the prevalent system. The so-called Jehadis, working at the behest of Pakistan, instead of launching deadly attacks on institutions of democracy like the Indian Parliament or the J&K. Assembly, should go to the people and ask them to vote against the present systems if they were not satisfied with it. But the irony is that they neither themselves cast their votes nor allow others to participate in the electoral process. Instead they issue threats against people participating in elections. They even resort to killing and humiliating innocent people. They should realize that by resorting to such mean tactics they are toeing the agenda of Pakistan who is out to demolish every possible institution in our country to hamper our progress. Such heinous crimes are acts of cowardice in the eyes Islam.</p><p>The concept of democracy in Islam is best understood that Islam is practised at two levels - the Infaradi-individual level and the lslamayee- collective level. At the individual level, a person is free to adopt the manner of worship he likes etc. But at the collective level, it is the voice of the people, which is to be given preference. In the social context, it is the Islamayee Islam, which is to be practised, and democracy is a social concept.</p><p><br /></p><p></p><h2>19 December 2002</h2><h2>By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan- President, Islamic Centre</h2><p></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-53763637997443461472009-06-07T10:51:00.000+03:002009-06-07T10:52:35.094+03:00Environment and Values: An Islamic Perspective<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102); font-family: verdana; "><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td><span style="font-size:85%;"><table border="0" width="10%" align="right" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="100%"><p style="margin-left: 5px; "><img border="0" src="http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/Environment/images/pic01.jpg" width="211" height="317" /></p></td></tr><tr><td width="100%"></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The rapid deterioration of human environment is nothing but a crisis of values. It is actually the most striking manifestation of the development of the Western civilization. One cannot ignore the inescapable conclusion that modern science and technology has provided us with a literal and physical capacity to completely destroy ourselves. The threat to the very abode of our terrestrial sojourn is merely an indication of this capacity.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><b>The Modern Situation</b></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The modern civilization is characterized by its awesome mastery of the physical and natural forces, which throughout human history have bedeviled Man with distress and misery of every kind. No longer helpless before the capricious might of untamed nature, modern man, having already subdued his whole terrestrial milieu, is now casting his covetous glances at the stars. This unprecedented dominion over nature is a unique and singularly impressive feature of the modern, albeit Western, civilization. Every other contemporary civilization tries to emulate the Western science and technology in its acquisition of the tools of this fearsome mastery. Political ideology, religious persuasion, cultural heritage and historical traditions are all willingly sacrificed at the high altar of modernity. Every contemporary society, it would appear, is scrambling for the spoils of the Western conquest of nature, unhampered by moral constraints of any kind.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Ironically, whereas the rest of the world is blinded by the dazzling display of Occidental might, the West itself is no longer sure of the fundamental moral forces of its civilization. Faced with the enormity of problems confronting the world today – problems defying technical, i.e. Western, solutions - Western man is displaying every symptom of nerve failure. The sheer impossibility of maintaining the wanton ethos of “progress and meliorism” forever has even shed an uncanny shadow of doubt on the ability of man to survive as a race on this planet. The ominous foreboding of environmental calamity, perhaps the greatest peril facing mankind today, has also brought back the cardinal virtue of temperantia and the need for humility regarding today’s scientific jargon. In short, gone today is the illusory sense of dominion, which man enjoyed during a short interregnum. Gone, certainly, is yesterday’s confidence in the powers of Promethean man.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><b>Ecological Ethics and Religious Consciousness</b></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Man as a creature, is never found in a “state of nature”, for as soon as he becomes recognizable as Man, he is already in a state of culture. Man’s strivings to impose his will upon nature, may therefore be construed as being essential to his constant struggle to remain in a state of humanity. The way he reacts with nature, seeking dominion over it or propitiating it with votive gifts, thus, mirrors man’s very conception of himself and of the ultimate values he espouses. Without doubt, human environment, the part of nature Man inhabits and fashions to meet his aspirations, reveals a great deal of a culture’s teleology and its overall world-view. Ecological issues are, in the final analysis steeped deep in the moral and ethical consciousness of a culture. Ecology is, in fact, a part and parcel of religious <i>Weltanschauung</i>.</span></p><table border="0" width="10%" align="right" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="100%"><p style="margin-left: 5px; "><span style="font-size:85%;"><img border="0" src="http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/Environment/images/pic01b.jpg" width="211" height="125" /></span></p></td></tr><tr><td width="100%"></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Recently, with the gradual awareness of the degradation of global environment, the following questions have repeatedly been asked: In which way is the present state of ecological imbalance indicative of the spiritual rootlessness of modern culture? What are the metaphysical and philosophical roots of the environmental attitude that has brought modern civilization to the brink of disaster? What is it in the Western man’s intellectual and spiritual heritage that distinguishes his view of nature and environmental ethics, from those of earlier and other contemporary cultures? Is the depletion of natural resources and the deterioration of human environment merely the obverse side of the industrial society that has let out the genie of technological change and is now unable to control the unruly spirit? Could the villain in the whole ecological drama be Man himself, who has bred too many of his own kind? Perhaps the root cause of our environmental predicament is simply that all ethics hitherto were always considered to have to deal only with the relations of Man to Man.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">A very provocative answer to these questions was provided by Lynn White Jr, who put forward the thesis that the roots of our ecological problems are to be found in the Judo-Christian ethics. Man, in the Biblical tradition, White argues, is above nature. He is a special creation of God and has been commanded to have dominion over nature: (to replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the seas and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.) Christianity, White continues, sanctified Man’s conquest of nature and was instrumental in the engenderment of natural and physical sciences. The emergence of science, technology, indeed the modern secular world, owes its rational to the Biblical Weltanschauung: nay, it is an essential fulfillment of Christian commitment. Then White’s argument changes into an indictment and marks the specific contribution of its author, by sanctioning Man’s unrestricted conquest of nature. Christianity, White believes, must take the blame for the environmental affliction of mankind because the roots of the present ecological crisis lay already in the first chapter of Genesis. Having acquired this insight, White was bold enough to plead for the modification of the so-called “dominion ethics”, which misapplication has resulted in the present environmental debacle, and replacing them with what he called “Franciscan conservatism”.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><b>Idolatry and Nature Worship</b></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The monotheistic crusade against the sin of idolatry, of nature worship, has also been dismissed as a Quixotian charge at the windmills because “it is doubtful that any such thing as idolatry has ever existed to any significant degree outside the perceptions – or misperceptions – of Judo-Christian cultures”. Quite the contrary, “desacralized nature, our nature, lacking sacramental transparency, has become an idol, an objectivized reality held to be final and self-sufficient: the highest reality, the only reality”. Nothing less than the whole prophetic tradition, from Abraham to Muhammad, stands accused for mankind’s present ecological distress!<o:p></o:p></span></p><table border="0" width="10%" align="right" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="100%"><p style="margin-left: 5px; "><span style="font-size:85%;"><img border="0" src="http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/Environment/images/pic01a.jpg" width="211" height="245" /></span></p></td></tr><tr><td width="100%"></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Another remarkable feature of the environmental controversy over the “monotheistic debasement of nature” was that Islam – as usual – hardly figured in this discussion as if it were a religion from the moon and the living reality of one billion Muslims merely a statistical illusion. It was taken for granted that “Islam, like Marxism, is a Judo-Christian heresy”, which had hardly anything original to contribute. As for those who did spare a thought or two to the flowering of science in “Islamdom”, during the Western Middle Ages, the anomalous fact was easily and erroneously “explained away”. The argument was that “the main content and attitude of Islamic science appear to be driven solidly from Greek sources”, and that “within the context of the present discussion, the case of Muslim science must logically lead to a direction opposite to that to which it is commonly supposed to lead”.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The whole subject of the relationship of Islam with natural science still awaits proper enquiry. It cannot be entered upon here, but all the available evidence suggests that the scientific Weltanschauung of Islam was anti-classical. If science in Islam did not lead to the same kind of development that transpired in the West, it is simply because it was never detached from values. Other more tangible factors, quite naturally, did contribute towards the decline of natural sciences in Islam, but the main constraints were ethical. In hindsight one could not regard this as merely unpropitious.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The role of religious consciousness in the formation of environmental attitudes, which is the vantage point of Islam, deserves as much consideration as any other. There is no justification for assuming an identity of Qur’anic and Biblical stance on the subject, without enquiry and comparison. Despite the common “monotheistic” vocabulary; God, creation, Man, history and revelation, the Qur’anic statement on Man’s ultimate purpose, and hence his relationship with nature, differs not only in tenor and syntax, but also in substance as well, from that of the Bible. Nature and ethics are at the very core of Qur’anic Weltanschauung. To infuse the natural world with transcendental ethics is the main purpose of Man, according to the Qur’an.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"><b>Salvation or Damnation</b></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">In fact, Man’s salvation or damnation ensues from his ability to assume moral responsibility in his natural milieu. So central is the Qur’anic theme of the affinity of nature and ethics that even outsiders have not failed to notice it. Actually the present ecological crisis has indeed made Islam a particularly relevant ethical tradition. Once blinded by the dazzling haze of modernity, countless numbers of Muslims are now, thanks also to the ecological hindsight of the once improvident Occidental culture, rediscovering their own spiritual roots. The whole philosophy of secular meliorism and its concomitant delusion of progress and prosperity forever, appear patently irrelevant when viewed in the light of the Qur’anic ethic of moral responsibility and moderation. It is not accidental that Muslim intellectuals were among the very first who raised their voices against the abuse of nature, which was being perpetrated in the name of science and progress.</span></p></span><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">In the coming years, Muslim thinkers will, I believe, make their voices increasingly heard on issues pertaining to environment and values. Their Islamic conscience, I believe further, makes them suitable partners in a debate, which until recently has been an internal Western prerogative. At a time when the whole ethical tradition of monotheism being reviled for leading us to the present environmental cataclysm, truth demands that monotheistic “solutions” – even outside of Biblical tradition – be sought. I believe Islam possesses such a monotheistic solution to mankind’s present ecological ills.</span></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; "><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td width="50%"><span style="font-size:85%;"><p align="left" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>By S. Parvez Manzoor</b></span></p></span></td><td width="50%"><p align="right" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>14/08/2003</b></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></td><td width="15"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-42305344078389224512009-06-07T10:49:00.000+03:002009-06-07T10:50:43.717+03:00Islamic Economics: Justice and Practicality<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102); font-family: verdana; "><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" height="35"><p align="center" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "></p><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td width="50%"><p align="left" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>By IOL Team</b></span></p></td><td width="50%" align="left"><p align="right" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>14/08/2003</b></span></p></td><td width="15"></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p></td><td width="15" height="35"></td></tr><tr><td valign="top"><span style="font-size:85%;"><table border="0" width="10%" align="right" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="100%"><p style="margin-left: 5px; "><img border="0" src="http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/Economics/images/pic02.jpg" width="211" height="164" /></p></td></tr><tr><td width="100%"></td></tr></tbody></table></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">As a complete way of life, Islam has provided guidelines and rules for ever sphere of society. Naturally, a functioning economic system is vital of a healthy society, as the consumption of goods and services and the facilitation of this by a common medium of exchange play a major role in allowing people to realize their material and other goals in life.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Islam has set some standards, based on justice and practicality, for such economic systems to be established. These standards aim to prevent the enmity that often occurs between different socioeconomic strata, and while they consider money to be among the most important elements in society, the gathering of which concerns almost every human being who participates in transactions with others, they do not lose sight of the fact that its position is secondary to the real purpose of human existence, the worship of Allah.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">There are three foundational principles that comprise the economic system in Islam: personal property, freedom of activity, and the right of money.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">An Islamic economic system is not necessarily concerned with the precise amount of fiscal income and expenditure, imports and exports, and other economic statistics. While such matters are no doubt important, Islam is concerned with the spirit of the economic system.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">A society that implements Islamic laws and promotes Islamic manners will find that it infuses all the systems – social, economic, and so forth – that it deals with. Islam teaches that Allah has created provision for every person who He has brought to life. Therefore, the competition for natural resources that is presumed to exist among the nations of the world is an illusion. While the earth has sufficient bounty to satisfy the needs of mankind, the challenge for humans lies in discovering, extracting, processing, and distributing these resources to those who need them.</span></p></span><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><a name="1">*</a> <i>Taken with permission from Introduction to Islam</i></span></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-86080973157906735632009-06-07T10:47:00.000+03:002009-06-07T10:48:59.383+03:00Uniting Humanity<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102); font-family: verdana; "><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td><span style="font-size:85%;"><table border="0" width="10%" align="right" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="100%"><p style="margin-left: 5px; "><img border="0" src="http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/Tolerance/images/pic01.jpg" width="211" height="150" /></p></td></tr><tr><td width="100%"></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The message of Islam is for the entire human race. According to Islam, Allah is the God of the entire world and Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is a messenger for the whole of mankind.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">According to Islam, all men are equal, whatever be their color, language, race or nationality. Islam addresses itself to the conscience of humanity and banishes all false barriers of race, status and wealth. There can be no denying the fact that such barriers have always existed, and do exist even today in this so-called enlightened age. Islam, however, removes all these impediments and proclaims the idea of the whole of humanity being one family of God. </span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Islam is international in its outlook and approach. It does not admit barriers and distinctions based on color, clan, blood or territory such as were prevalent before the advent of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). These are rampant in different forms, even in this modern age.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Islam is a way of life that transcends race and ethnicity. The Glorious Qur’an repeatedly reminds us of our common origin:</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:AGA Arabesque;">(</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).</span><b><span style="font-family:AGA Arabesque;">)</span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> (Al-Hujrat: 13)</span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">The eradication of race consciousness is one of the outstanding moral achievements of Islam. In the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue. It is conceivable that the spirit of Islam might be the timely reinforcement, which would decide this issue in favor of tolerance and peace, the historian A.J. Toynbee wrote in his book <i>Civilization on Trial.</i></span></p></span><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 20px; "><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Islam unites the entire human race under one banner. To a world torn by national rivalries and feuds, it presents a message of life and hope, and of a glorious future.</span></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 20px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; "><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td width="50%"><p align="left" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>By IOL Team</b></span></p></td><td width="50%" align="left"><p align="right" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>14/08/2003</b></span></p><div style="text-align: -webkit-right;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 128); font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div></td></tr></tbody></table></span></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 20px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-5630404447098886862009-06-07T10:45:00.000+03:002009-06-07T10:47:24.953+03:00The Purpose of the Islamic State<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102); font-family: verdana; "><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td><span style="font-size:85%;"><table border="0" width="10%" align="right" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="100%"><p style="margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px; "><img border="0" src="http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/politics/Politics/images/pic02.jpg" width="211" height="172" /></p></td></tr><tr><td width="100%"><p style="margin-left: 5px; "></p></td></tr></tbody></table></span><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">The Qur’an clearly states that the aim and purpose of the Islamic state is the establishment, maintenance and development of those virtues which the Creator wishes human life to be enriched by and the prevention and eradication of those evils in human life which He finds abhorrent. The Islamic state is intended neither solely as an instrument of political administration nor for the fulfillment of the collective will of any particular set of people. Rather, Islam places a high ideal before the state, which it must use all the means at its disposal to achieve.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">This ideal is that the qualities of purity, beauty, goodness, virtue, success and prosperity which Allah wants to flourish in the life of humankind should be engendered and developed and that all kinds of exploitation, injustice and disorder which, in the sight of Allah, are ruinous for the world and detrimental to the life of His creatures, should be suppressed and prevented. Islam gives us a clear outline of its moral system by stating positively the desired virtues and the undesired evils. Keeping this outline in view, the Islamic state can plan its welfare policies in every era and in any context.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">The constant demand made by Islam is that the principles of morality must be observed at all costs and in all walks of life. Hence, it lays down as an unalterable policy that the state should base its policies on justice, truth and honesty. It is not prepared, under any circumstances, to tolerate fraud, falsehood and injustice for the sake of political, administrative or so-called national interest. Whether it is domestic relations within the state, or international relations with other nations, precedence must always be given to truth, honesty and justice.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"><table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="right" style="border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: 6.75pt; margin-right: 6.75pt; "><tbody><tr style="height: 55pt; "><td width="215" style="width: 161pt; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: navy; border-top-width: 1.25pt; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: navy; border-bottom-width: 1.25pt; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: initial; border-right-color: initial; height: 55pt; "><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"><b><span style="color:#000080;">Islam has laid down universal fundamental rights for humanity</span></b></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></span><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Islam imposes similar obligations on the state and the individual: to fulfill all contracts and obligations; to have uniform standards in all interactions and transactions; to remember obligations along with rights and not to forget the rights of others when expecting them to fulfill their obligations; to use power and authority for the establishment of justice and not for the perpetration of injustice; to look upon duty as a sacred obligation and to fulfill it scrupulously; and to regard power as a trust from Allah to be used in the belief that one has to render an account of one’s actions in this world but also, most importantly, to Him in the life hereafter.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"><b>Fundamental Rights</b></span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Although an Islamic state may be set up anywhere on earth, Islam does not seek to restrict human rights or privileges to the boundaries of such a state. Islam has laid down universal fundamental rights for humanity which are to be observed and respected in all circumstances. For example, human blood is sacred and may not be spilled without strong justification such as criminal punishment after a fair trial or in a just war; it is not permissible to oppress women, children, old people, the sick or the wounded; women’s honor and chastity must be respected. These rights are for all people, irrespective of whether they belong to the Islamic community — Muslims and non-Muslims alike — or are from amongst its enemies. These and other provisions have been laid down by Islam as fundamental rights for every human being by virtue of his status as a creation of Allah.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"><table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="right" style="border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: 6.75pt; margin-right: 6.75pt; "><tbody><tr style="height: 55pt; "><td width="215" style="width: 161pt; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: navy; border-top-width: 1.25pt; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: navy; border-bottom-width: 1.25pt; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: initial; border-right-color: initial; height: 55pt; "><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>The Islamic state may not interfere with the personal rights of non-Muslims</b></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></span><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Nor, in Islam, are the rights of citizenship confined to people born in a particular state. A Muslim ipso facto becomes the citizen of an Islamic state as soon as he sets foot on its territory with the intention of living there and thus enjoys equal rights along with those who acquire its citizenship by birth. And every Muslim is to be regarded as eligible for positions of the highest responsibility in an Islamic state without distinction of race, sex, color or class. These rights have been challenged, of course, by the division of the Muslim nation into nation states in the modern era after independence from colonialism. Many attempts have been made to unite these states but in vain, due to numerous reasons that can be discussed at length separately.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Islam has also laid down rights for non-Muslims who may be living within the boundaries of an Islamic state, and these rights necessarily form part of the Islamic constitution. The life, property and honor of non-Muslim citizens is to be respected and protected in exactly the same way as that of Muslim citizens. Nor is there difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim citizen in respect of civil or criminal law, though there are differences in family law in respect of the diversity of religious practices and family codes.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">The Islamic state may not interfere with the personal rights of non-Muslims, who have full freedom of conscience and belief and are at liberty to perform their religious rites and ceremonies in their own way.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Even if a non-Muslim state oppresses its Muslim citizens, it is not permissible for an Islamic state to retaliate against its own non-Muslim citizens. It may not unjustly shed the blood of a single non-Muslim citizen living within its boundaries. </span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; "><br /></span></p><p class="Style2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; "><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td width="50%"><p align="left" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>By IOL Team</b></span></p></td><td width="50%" align="left"><p align="right" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>14/08/2003</b></span></p></td><td width="15"></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p></td><td width="15"></td></tr><tr><td><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></span></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-66980867804627864392009-06-07T10:43:00.000+03:002009-06-07T10:45:27.384+03:00Human Rights in Islam<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102); font-family: verdana; "><p class="MsoNormal" dir="LTR" style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 6pt; "><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana; ">Contrary to popular belief, the struggle for universal human rights is not a modern one. Although some claim that the idea of human rights is a Western concept or ideology, Islam was the first institution to advocate and implement such human rights as universal equality and women’s rights. In fact, Islam promoted the universality of the human experience over 1300 years before the United Nations declared it to exist.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" dir="LTR" style="margin-top: 6pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 0cm; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; "><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana; ">Human rights in Islam have been granted by Allah (God), and no individual or legislative assembly has the right to amend, change, or withdraw them. Every Muslim or administrator who claims to be Muslim must accept, recognize and enforce these rights. All those temporal authorities who claim to be Muslims yet violate the rights sanctioned by Allah are either disbelievers or wrong-doers.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" dir="LTR" style="margin-top: 6pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 0cm; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; "><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana; ">Islam grants certain basic human rights to all people, Muslims and non-Muslims, and regardless of their race, nationality, ethnic origin or language. The first of these rights is the right to live and respect human life. Only a proper and competent court of law can decide to take a life in retaliation for murder or for punishment for spreading corruption on the earth. Only a properly established government can decide to wage war. No human being has the right by himself to take a human life for retaliation or for causing mischief on the earth.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" dir="LTR" style="margin-top: 6pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 0cm; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; "><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana; ">Every human has the right to the safety of life. This means that if someone is ill, wounded, starving, or drowning, et cetera, he has the right to be saved.</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"><table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="right" style="border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: 6.75pt; margin-right: 6.75pt; "><tbody><tr style="height: 55pt; "><td width="215" style="width: 161pt; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: navy; border-top-width: 1.25pt; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: navy; border-bottom-width: 1.25pt; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: initial; border-right-color: initial; height: 55pt; "><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>Islam recognizes absolute equality between people</b></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></span><p class="MsoNormal" dir="LTR" style="margin-top: 6pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 0cm; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; "><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana; ">Islam grants every woman the right to have her chastity respected and guarded under all circumstances. Even in war, a woman who is of the enemy nation cannot be violated. All promiscuous relationships are forbidden to a Muslim, irrespective of the status or position of the woman, and whether or not she is a willing partner to the act.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" dir="LTR" style="margin-top: 6pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 0cm; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; "><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana; ">All people have the right to a basic standard of life. Anyone who is suffering from deprivation has a right in the property and wealth of the Muslims.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" dir="LTR" style="margin-top: 6pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 0cm; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; "><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana; ">Islam grants the individual the right to freedom. It is categorically forbidden to capture a free person and make him a slave or sell him into slavery.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" dir="LTR" style="margin-top: 6pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 0cm; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; "><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana; ">Islam recognizes absolute equality between people. There is no superiority of Arab over non-Arab, white over black, or vice-versa. All people are descended from Adam and are as brothers and sisters.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" dir="LTR" style="margin-top: 6pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 0cm; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; "><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana; ">Islam prescribes the general principle of the right to cooperate and not to co operate. Any person who undertakes a noble and righteous work has the right to expect the Muslims to cooperate with him or support him. The one who perpetrates vice and aggression does not have the right to the Muslims’ support and cooperation.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" dir="LTR" style="margin-top: 6pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 0cm; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; "><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana; ">These are general human rights that Islam gives to all. There are other rights set down by Islam dealing with issues such as the rights of citizens in an Islamic state and the rights of enemies during times of war.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" dir="LTR" style="margin-top: 6pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 0cm; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" dir="LTR" style="margin-top: 6pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-left: 0cm; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; "><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td width="50%"><p align="left" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>By IOL Team</b></span></p></td><td width="50%"><p align="right" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>14/08/2003</b></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></span></span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-91766401337204565252009-06-07T10:41:00.000+03:002009-06-07T10:43:30.347+03:00Muslim Character<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102); font-family: verdana; font-size: 13px; "><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">There are people who think that “a perfect Muslim” is simply one who is correct in the observance of the salah (ritual Prayer), the fasting, the zakah (payment of a certain portion of one’s wealth to the poor), and the Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah). This indeed is not the case. If the ritual observances do not help the person to be humble, virtuous and truly God-fearing, then he or she is not a real Muslim. A Muslim should be good and just in dealing with others, no matter their religion, and take special care to keep away from all the shameful and sinful things Allah (God) has forbidden.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">We can summarize the teachings of Islam about the Muslim character succinctly in this form:</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be truthful in everything, don’t lie.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be sincere and straightforward, don’t be hypocritical.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be honest, don’t be corrupt.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be humble, don’t be boastful.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be moderate, don’t be excessive.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be reserved, don’t be garrulous.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be soft-spoken, don’t be loud.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be refined and gentle in speech, don’t curse and use foul language.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be loving and solicitous to others, don’t be unmindful of them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be considerate and compassionate, don’t be harsh.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be polite and respectful to people, don’t be insulting or disrespectful.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be generous and charitable, don’t be selfish and miserly.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be good natured and forgiving, don’t be bitter and resentful.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Share and be content with what Allah has given you, don’t be greedy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be cheerful and pleasant, don’t be irritable and morose.<o:p></o:p></span></p><table border="0" width="10%" align="right" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="100%"><p style="margin-left: 5px; "><img border="0" src="http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/Individual/images/pic02a.jpg" width="211" height="159" /></p></td></tr><tr><td width="100%"><p style="margin-left: 5px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:78%;color:#000080;">Muslims should be loving to each other</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size:85%;"><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be chaste and pure, don’t be lustful.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be alert and aware of the world around you, don’t be absent-minded.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be dignified and decent, don’t be graceless.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be optimistic and hopeful, don’t be cynical or pessimistic.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Be confident and have deep faith, don’t be doubtful and wavering.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Be spiritually oriented and not materialistic.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Be confident of the mercy of Allah, don’t be despairing and lose heart.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Be diligent and vigilant of your duties, don’t be negligent.<o:p></o:p></span></p></span><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Be thankful to Allah and constantly pray to Him, don’t be forgetful of His innumerable blessings.</span></span></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><br /></p><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; "><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td width="50%"><p align="left" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>By IOL Team</b></span></p></td><td width="50%"><p align="right" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>14/08/2003</b></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-4981145197121809312009-06-07T10:37:00.002+03:002009-06-07T10:41:45.410+03:00Democracy in Islam<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102); font-family: verdana; "><p style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Every individual in an Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers as the caliph of Allah, and in this respect all individuals are equal. “Caliphate” as a term has frequently been used to describe an Islamic political system based on monarchy, while the authentic notion truly refers to the authority of every single Muslim in his human capacity and his right to enjoy dignity and respect.</span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">The notion of khilafah expresses how Islam empowers human beings and also how the government does not enjoy any special rights apart from those delegated to it by the political community.</span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">The Hobbesian conception of the necessity of the State and its priority and seeing it as a condition for civility does not conform to the Islamic perspective. Yes, the formation of a State is a historical process, but the community comes first. No authority may deprive any citizen of his rights and powers.</span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">The agency for running the affairs of the state will be formed by agreement with these individuals, and the authority of the state will only be an extension of the powers of the individuals delegated to it. Their opinion should be decisive in the formation of the government, which will be run with their advice and in accordance with their wishes.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Whoever gains their confidence will undertake the duties and obligations of the caliphate on their behalf (in the form of political representation); and when he/she loses this confidence he/she will have to step down from his/her specific position and be accountable for his/her actions and decisions. In this respect the political system of Islam is a form of democracy, even if it is not a secular one as democracies are usually defined in contemporary political literature.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">What distinguishes Islamic democracy from Western democracy, therefore, is that the latter is based on the concept of popular sovereignty, while the former rests on the principle of popular khilafah, mixing religious devotion with a notion of democracy and citizenship.</span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. The laws given by Allah through His Prophet ( Shari ‘ah) are to be regarded as constitutional principles that should not be violated.</span></span></p><p class="Style2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></p><p class="Style2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; "><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td width="50%"><p align="left" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000080;"><b>By IOL Team</b></span></p><p align="left" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "></p></td><td width="50%" align="left"><p align="right" style="margin-left: 6px; margin-right: 6px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 128); font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; ">14/08/2003</span><br /></p></td></tr></tbody></table></span></span></p></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-54436756616930928922009-06-07T10:25:00.001+03:002009-06-07T10:27:16.114+03:00Can Islam and Democracy Coexist?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">Saudi Arabia recently announced that it would hold elections for municipal council positions. The Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C., heralded the news as part of the kingdom's reform agenda and echoed an address by King Fahd last May in which he vowed to "broaden popular participation in the political process."</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">The eventual scope of Saudi reform remains to be seen, and the reasons driving such a decision are debatable. Yet even a small step towards democracy in the conservative kingdom raises eyebrows as questions reemerge about the future of participatory government in the Islamic world. How compatible are Islam and democracy, and under what conditions do the two thrive together?</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; "><b>A Matter of Perspective</b></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">Louay Safi, a member of the board of directors of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), has spent a lot of time thinking about the pairing of Islam and democratic forms of government. He sees a good fit.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">"I think that Islam as a set of norms and ideals that emphasizes the equality of people, the accountability of leaders to community, and the respect of diversity and other faiths, is fully compatible with democracy. I don't see how it could be compatible with a government that would take away those values."</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">Yet throughout the Islamic world there are those who paint the two as at odds. Columbia University professor Richard Bulliet, who specializes in the history of the Middle East and other Islamic nations, feels that most of those presumptions are grounded in anti-U.S. and anti-West sentiment.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">"Some of the people who say that democracy has no place in Islam, what they really express is a sense that the word 'democracy' as presented in international discourse appears to be wholly owned by the West," he said. "The word itself has, for some, a connotation of cultural imperialism. If you talk about representative government without the baggage of these institutions in the U.S., but on more idealistic grounds, then it makes perfectly good sense to a lot of Muslims. The idea of citizenry participating in government is, particularly within Sunni Islam, sort of a bedrock theory."</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">Bulliet adds, however, there is a minority that simply doesn't agree that democracy is right for Islam. "There are people who support the idea that Islam should be an emirate, that there should always be a ruler—the Taliban for example," he said. "You do have people who feel that autocracy is intrinsic to the Muslim system, and some of those people are on the violent side but some of them are not."</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">Self-government does have some roots in the Islamic world. Safi explains that historic Muslim societies were more representative than their modern counterparts because the central state was not as powerful. "I would argue that Muslim society was a society where communities had some control of their own affairs. There was more decentralization of power. The central government was mainly focusing on issues of law and order or security. There was a lot of liberty for individuals to negotiate many of the norms and rules within their own communities."</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">Safi feels that a historic mistrust of central authority, bolstered by post-colonial experiences with oppressive central governments, could spark Muslim societies to seek more participatory governments with weaker national authority.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; "><b>Self-Government</b></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "></span></span></p><p class="intro" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; line-height: 1.3em; color: rgb(52, 52, 52); margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 1em; ">In modern times, however, the Islamic world has not been particularly fertile ground for the seeds of democracy. If it is to become such, Safi argues that changes must come from within Muslim societies.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">"I don't see democracy built without ordinary people working for that," he said. "It can't be imposed from the top down or from the outside. Definitely outsiders can help. They can apply pressure on dictatorial or authoritarian regimes as we did for example in South Africa, where outside help was essential in fostering a more democratic regime. But I think we have to keep in mind we can't push democracy down the throat of anyone. If we do that it becomes a hated concept. Nobody wants to be forced to be a democrat—that's a contradiction in terms."</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; "></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">If such change is to begin, Safi believes that it can only happen through Islam, making the faith not only compatible but essential for the democratization of Muslim societies.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">"Part of the problem in societies that have adopted a more hierarchical preference is a need for cultural reform, so that they can become more in line with the Islamic values of equality, freedom of religion, and respect for the individual," he said. "A cultural change is required, and we know that can't be undertaken without appealing to more fundamental values. That's where religion comes in, where Islam comes in. It's difficult to imagine the modern West without the Reformation in Europe and it's difficult for me to see a more reformed Middle East without Islam being a big part of that."</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; "><b>Democracies Differ</b></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">While the idea of religious fundamentalists gaining strength through self-government gives many in the West pause, Bulliet says that the problem is not unique.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">"The idea of simply allowing parties of any sort to form and run has really been a problem in all democracies," he said. "We had a time when people were expelled from the New York legislature because they were communists. It's a difficult problem."</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">In some Muslim governments, the problem has been dealt with by a combination of self-government and central authority. "In countries such as Yemen and Jordan where they've had a pluralist legislature, there has been a strong dictatorial figure on top to ensure that not too many changes are made," Bulliet said. "Some argue that that's a pretty good halfway house, a check to keep the current majority from going hog wild. I don't think it's impossible to imagine (Egypt President) Hosni Mubarak retiring and the generals putting someone in charge so that the president would have powers to suspend the legislature if he felt it was getting out of hand—but you'd have a broader range of people who could become involved."</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">Across the world of Islam, governments have adopted varying degrees of self-representation in response to unique historical circumstances. Turkey is a parliamentary, secular democracy. Indonesia is one of the world's largest republics, but an uncertain one as the nation still struggles to evolve a representative political system after decades of authoritarian rule. Iran is a theocratic republic with a growing democratic reform movement. Iraq is currently a case study in "nation-building" in the aftermath of the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">It's proof there is no one-size-fits-all democracy any more than there is a single interpretation of Islam.</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; ">"Ultimately democracy could evolve a bit differently in different cultures," Safi explained. "It doesn't have to be a replica of the democracy we have in the U.S. You can't compare what we've achieved here as a society over two centuries with an emerging democracy, where people are just trying to test the boundaries and find out what democracy means."</p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; "><br /></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 1em; "></p><div class="inlinedate" style="font-weight: normal; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-style: normal; ">Brian Handwerk<br />for National Geographic News<br /></div><div class="inlinedate" style="font-weight: normal; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-style: normal; ">Updated October 24, 2003</div><p></p><p></p></span><p></p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-17062479541393713462009-06-07T10:23:00.000+03:002009-06-07T10:24:37.669+03:00Islam and Democracy<tr><td><p>The relationship between Islam and democracy in the contemporary world is complex. The Muslim world is not ideologically monolithic. It presents a broad spectrum of perspectives ranging from the extremes of those who deny a connection between Islam and democracy to those who argue that Islam requires a democratic system. In between the extremes, in a number of countries where Muslims are a majority, many Muslims believe that Islam is a support for democracy even though their particular political system is not explicitly defined as Islamic.</p><p>Throughout the Muslim world in the twentieth century, many groups that identify themselves explicitly as Islamic attempted to participate directly in the democratic processes as regimes were overthrown in Eastern Europe, Africa, and elsewhere. In Iran such groups controlled and defined the system as a whole; in other areas, the explicitly Islamic groups were participating in systems that were more secular in structure. The participation of self-identified Islamically oriented groups in elections, and in democratic processes in general, aroused considerable controversy. People who believe that secular approaches and a separation of religion and politics are an essential part of democracy argue that Islamist groups only advocate democracy as a tactic to gain political power. They say Islamist groups support “one man, one vote, one time.” In Algeria and Turkey, following electoral successes by parties thought to be religiously threatening to the existing political regimes, the Islamic political parties were restricted legally or suppressed.</p><p>The relationship between Islam and democracy is strongly debated among the people who identify with the Islamic resurgence in the late twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first. Some of these Islamists believe that “democracy” is a foreign concept that has been imposed by Westernizers and secular reformers upon Muslim societies. They often argue that the concept of popular sovereignty denies the fundamental Islamic affirmation of the sovereignty of God and is, therefore, a form of idolatry. People holding these views are less likely to be the ones participating in elections. Many limit themselves to participating in intellectual debates in the media, and others hold themselves aloof from the political dynamics of their societies, hoping that their own isolated community will in some way be an inspiration to the broader Muslim community. Many prominent Islamic intellectuals and groups, however, argue that Islam and democracy are compatible. Some extend the argument to affirm that under the conditions of the contemporary world, democracy can be considered a requirement of Islam.In these discussions, Muslim scholars bring historically important concepts from within the Islamic tradition together with the basic concepts of democracy as understood in the modern world.</p><p>The process in the Muslim world is similar to that which has taken place within other major religious traditions. All of the great world faith traditions represent major bodies of ideas, visions, and concepts fundamental to understanding human life and destiny.</p><p>Many of these significant concepts have been used in different ways in different periods of history. The Christian tradition, for example, in premodern times provided a conceptual foundation for divine right monarchy; in contemporary times, it fosters the concept that Christianity and democracy are truly compatible. In all traditions, there are intellectual and ideological resources that can provide the justification for absolute monarchy or for democracy. The controversies arise regarding how basic concepts are to be understood and implemented.</p><p>A relatively neutral starting point for Muslims is presented in a 1992 interview in the <i>London Observer</i> with the Tunisian Islamist leader and political exile, Rashid Ghanoushi: “If by democracy is meant the liberal model of government prevailing in the West, a system under which the people freely choose their representatives and leaders, in which there is an alternation of power, as well as all freedoms and human rights for the public, then Muslims will find nothing in their religion to oppose democracy, and it is not in their interests to do so.” Many Muslims, including Ghanoushi himself, go beyond this and view democracy as an appropriate way to fulfill certain obligations of the faith in the contemporary world.</p><p>The Islamic tradition contains a number of key concepts that are presented by Muslims as the key to “Islamic democracy.” Most would agree that it is important for Muslims not simply to copy what non-Muslims have done in creating democratic systems, emphasizing that there are different forms that legitimate democracy can take. Iran’s President Mohammad Khatami, in a television interview in June before that country’s presidential elections, noted that “the existing democracies do not necessarily follow one formula or aspect. It is possible that a democracy may lead to a liberal system. It is possible that democracy may lead to a socialist system. Or it may be a democracy with the inclusion of religious norms in the government. We have accepted the third option.” Khatami presents a view common among the advocates of Islamic democracy that “today world democracies are suffering from a major vacuum, which is the vacuum of spirituality,” and that Islam can provide the framework for combining democracy with spirituality and religious government.</p><p>The synthesis of spirituality and government builds on a fundamental affirmation at the heart of Islam: the proclamation that “There is no divinity but The God” and the affirmation of the “oneness” of God. This concept, called tawhid, provides the foundation for the idea that one cannot separate different aspects of life into separate compartments. Ali Shariati, who made important contributions to the ideological development of the Islamic revolution in Iran, wrote in<i>On the Sociology of Islam</i>, that tawhid “in the sense of oneness of God is of course accepted by all monotheists. But tauhid as a world view . . . means regarding the whole universe as a unity, instead of dividing it into this world and the here-after . . . spirit and body.” In this worldview, the separation of religion from politics creates a spiritual vacuum in the public arena and opens the way for political systems that have no sense of moral values. From such a perspective, a secular state opens the way for the abuse of power. The experiences of Muslim societies with military regimes that are secularist in ideological origin, such as the Baath Arab Socialist regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, reinforce this mistrust of separating religious values from politics.</p><p>Advocates of Islamic democracy argue that the Oneness of God requires some form of democratic system; conservatives contend that the idea of the sovereignty of the people contradicts the sovereignty of God; often the alternative then becomes some form of a monarchical system. The response to this is an affirmation of tawhid, as expressed by a Sudanese intellectual, Abdelwahab El-Affendi, in the October 2000 edition of <i>Islam 21</i>: “No Muslim questions the sovereignty of God or the rule of Shari’ah [the Islamic legal path]. However, most Muslims do (and did) have misgivings about any claims by one person that he is sovereign. The sovereignty of one man contradicts the sovereignty of God, for all men are equal in front of God. . . . Blind obedience to one-man rule is contrary to Islam.” In this way, it is argued that the doctrine of tawhid virtually requires a democratic system because humans are all created equal and any system that denies that equality is not Islamic.</p><p>There are a number of specific concepts that Muslims cite when they explain the relationship between Islam and democracy. In the Qur’an, the righteous are described as those people who, among other things, manage their affairs through “mutual consultation” or shura (42:38 Qur’an). This is expanded through traditions of the Prophet and the sayings and actions of the early leaders of the Muslim community to mean that it is obligatory for Muslims in managing their political affairs to engage in mutual consultation. Contemporary Muslim thinkers ranging from relatively conservative Islamists to more liberal modernists to Shi’ite activists emphasize the importance of consultation. There would be little disagreement with the view of Ayatollah Baqir al-Sadr, the Iraqi Shi’ite leader who was executed by Saddam Hussein in 1980, who said in <i>Islamic Political System</i>, that the people “have a general right to dispose of their affairs on the basis of the principle of consultation.” What this meant for the constitutional system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was influenced by al-Sadr’s thought, was affirmed by President Khatami in last June’s interview: the “people play a fundamental role in bringing a government to power, in supervising the government and possibly the replacement of the government without any tension and problems.”</p><p>Another basic concept in the development of Islamic democracy is “caliph.” In contemporary discussions, traditional political usage of the term caliph has been redefined. Historically the term caliph was used as the title of the monarchs who ruled the medieval Muslim empire. When medieval Muslim political philosophers spoke of the institutions of caliphal rule, the caliphate, they were were analyzing the political institution of the successors to the Prophet Muhammad as the leader of the Muslim community. However, this concept of the caliphate was something that developed after the death of the Prophet.</p><p>In the Qur’an, the Arabic words for caliph (khalifah) and caliphate (khilafah) have a different meaning. These terms in the Qur’an have the more general meaning of steward and stewardship or trustee and trusteeship. In this way, Adam, as the first human, is identified as God’s caliph or steward on earth (2:30). Muhammad is instructed to remind humans that God made them the caliphs (stewards or trustees) of the earth (6:165). In this way, in the Qur’an, the term caliphate refers to the broad responsibilities of humans to be the stewards of God’s creation.</p><p>By the late twentieth century, long after the last vestiges of the political caliphate had been abolished by the reforms of Ataturk in Turkey in 1924, Muslim intellectuals began to see the importance of the concept of all humans as “caliphs” or God’s stewards. As the intellectual dimensions of the late twentieth-century Islamic resurgence became more clearly defined, Ismail al-Faruqi, a scholar of Palestinian origins, outlined an ambitious project in a small book, Islamization of Knowledge. The concept of the caliphate involved responsibilities for all humans, in all dimensions of life, but especially the political: “Rightly, Muslims understand khilafah as directly political. . . . Islam requires that every Muslim be politicized (i.e., awakened, organized, and mobilized).”</p><p>The implications of this reassertion of a more explicitly Qur’anic meaning of human stewardship for Islamic democracy were spelled out by the South Asian Islamist leader, Abu al-Ala Mawdudi in <i>The Islamic Way of Life</i>: “The authority of the caliphate is bestowed on the entire group of people, the community as a whole. . . . Such a society carries the responsibility of the caliphate as a whole and each one of its individual[s] shares the Divine Caliphate. This is the point where democracy begins in Islam. Every person in an Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers of the caliphate of God and in this respect all individuals are equal.”</p><p>In theory and concept, Islamic democracy is, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, quite well developed and persuasive. In actual practice the results have been less encouraging. Authoritarian rulers such as Ja’far Numayri in Sudan and Zia al-Haqq in Pakistan initiated formal programs of Islamization of the law and political system in the 1980s with results that were not encouraging for democracy. A military coup brought a combination of military and civilian Islamists to rule in Sudan in 1989 and despite the proclaimed goal of creating an Islamic democracy, the regime’s human rights record in terms of treatment of non-Muslim minorities and Muslim opposition groups is deplorable.</p><p>International human rights groups have also been critical of the treatment of non-Muslim minorities in Iran, where the Shah was overthrown in 1979. During its first decade, the Islamic Republic set narrow limitations on political participation. However, the end of the nineties saw the unprecedented presidential election victory of Mohammad Khatami, who had not been favored by the conservative religious establishment. He was reelected by an overwhelming majority again in 2001. Although there are continuing grounds for criticizing Iran in terms of its repression of opposition and minorities, increasing numbers of women and youth are voting in elections. Instead of “one man, one vote, one time,” the “one man” is being joined by “one woman” as a voting force.</p><p>Beyond the formally proclaimed Islamic political systems, there has also been an increasing role for democracy with an Islamic tone. In many countries, Muslims who are not activist Islamists have participated in electoral processes and brought a growing sense of the need for morality and Islamic awareness in the political arena. In an era when politics in many countries is becoming “desecularized,” leaders of Islamic organizations play important roles in electoral political systems that are not explicitly identified as Islamic. When the military regime of Suharto in Indonesia was brought to an end, the person who became president in 1999 as a result of the first open elections was Abd al-Rahman Wahid, the leader of Nahdat ul-Ulama, perhaps the largest Islamic organization in the world. He did not campaign on a platform of Islamizing the political system, even though he participated in the democratic system as a clearly identifiable Islamic leader. When he was removed as president this year, it was by a process of orderly replacement, and neither his followers nor his opponents engaged in religious warfare.</p><p>Similarly, Islamically oriented political parties have operated successfully in the secular electoral politics of Turkey, with the leader of one such party, Necmettin Erbakan, serving as prime minister briefly in 1996-1997. Although in succession, the Islamically oriented Turkish parties have been suppressed and many of their leaders jailed, the response of the people in the parties has simply been to form new parties and try again within the political system rather than withdrawing into a violent underground opposition.</p><p>The Turkish experience reflects the fact that many Muslims, whether living in formally secular or formally Islamic states, see democracy as their main hope and vehicle of effective political participation. One important dimension of this participation is that despite conservative Muslim opposition to the idea of rule by a woman, the three largest Muslim states in the world -- Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan -- have had or now have elected women as their heads of government. None of these women was explicitly Islamist and one was directly opposed by an Islamist party.</p><p>In this complex context, it is clear that Islam is not inherently incompatible with democracy. “Political Islam” is sometimes a program for religious democracy and not primarily an agenda for holy war or terrorism.</p><p>Islam and Democracy <i>(Oxford University Press, 1966) has been translated into a number of languages, including Arabic, Turkish, Japanese, and Indonesian. John O. Voll received $126,058 from NEH to conduct a Summer Institute for College Teachers on modern Islam and John L. Esposito received $126,058 to research the works of modern Muslim scholar-activists.</i></p><p></p><hr size="1"><i>Humanities</i>, November/December 2001, Volume 22/Number 6<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'times new roman'; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; ">By John L. Esposito and John O. Voll</span><br /></td></tr>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-12231476857636051522009-06-07T10:20:00.001+03:002009-06-07T10:23:08.861+03:00Can There Be an Islamic Democracy?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 12px; "><h1 style="margin-bottom: 10px; font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(173, 48, 49); font-size: 17px; font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal; ">Are Islam and democracy compatible? A large literature has developed arguing that Islam has all the ingredients of modern state and society. Many Muslim intellectuals seek to prove that Islam enshrines democratic values. But rather than lead the debate, they often follow it, peppering their own analyses with references to Western scholars who, casting aside traditional Orientalism for the theories of the late literary theorist and polemicist Edward Said, twist evidence to fit their theories. Why such efforts? For Western scholars, the answer lies both in politics and the often lucrative desire to please a wider Middle East audience. For Islamists, though, the motivation is to remove suspicion about the nature and goals of Islamic movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood and, perhaps, even Hezbollah.</span><br /></span></h1><h1 style="margin-bottom: 10px; font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(173, 48, 49); font-size: 17px; font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></h1><h1 style="margin-bottom: 10px; font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(173, 48, 49); font-size: 17px; font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal;"><h3 style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(173, 48, 49); font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; ">Western Apologia</h3><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Some Western researchers support the Islamist claim that parliamentary democracy and representative elections are not only compatible with Islamic law, but that Islam actually encourages democracy. They do this in one of two ways: either they twist definitions to make them fit the apparatuses of Islamic government—terms such as democracy become relative—or they bend the reality of life in Muslim countries to fit their theories.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Among the best known advocates of the idea that Islam both is compatible and encourages democracy is John L. Esposito, founding director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and the author or editor of more than thirty books about Islam and Islamist movements. Esposito and his various co-authors build their arguments upon tendentious assumptions and platitudes such as "democracy has many and varied meanings;"<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="color: blue; ">[1]</a> "every culture will mold an independent model of democratic government;"<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="color: blue; ">[2]</a> and "there can develop a religious democracy."<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="color: blue; ">[3]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">He argues that "Islamic movements have internalized the democratic discourse through the concepts of <i>shura</i>[consultation], <i>ijma'</i> [consensus], and <i>ijtihad</i> [independent interpretive judgment]"<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="color: blue; ">[4]</a> and concludes that democracy already exists in the Muslim world, "whether the word democracy is used or not."<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="color: blue; ">[5]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">If Esposito's arguments are true, then why is democracy not readily apparent in the Middle East? Freedom House regularly ranks Arab countries as among the least democratic anywhere.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="color: blue; ">[6]</a> Esposito adopts Said's belief that Western scholarship and standards are inherently biased and lambastes both scholars who pass such judgments without experience with Islamic movements<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="color: blue; ">[7]</a> and those who have a "secular bias" toward Islam.<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" style="color: blue; ">[8]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">For example, in <i>Islam and Democracy</i>,<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" style="color: blue; ">[9]</a> Esposito and co-author John Voll, associate director of the Prince Alwaleed Center, question Western attempts to monopolize the definition of democracy and suggest the very concept shifts meanings over time and place. They argue that every culture can mold an independent model of democratic government, which may or may not correlate to the Western liberal idea.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" style="color: blue; ">[10]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Only after eviscerating the meaning of democracy as the concept developed and derived from Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece through Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in eighteenth century America, can Esposito and his fellow travelers advance theories of the compatibility of Islamism and democracy.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">While Esposito's arguments may be popular within the Middle East Studies Association, democracy theorists tend to dismiss such relativism. Larry Diamond, co-editor of the <i>Journal of Democracy</i>, and Leonardo Morlino, a specialist in comparative politics at the University of Florence, ascribe seven features to any democracy: individual freedoms and civil liberties; rule of the law; sovereignty resting upon the people; equality of all citizens before the law; vertical and horizontal accountability for government officials; transparency of the ruling systems to the demands of the citizens; and equality of opportunity for citizens.<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" style="color: blue; ">[11]</a> This approach is important, since it emphasizes civil liberties, human rights and freedoms, instead of over-reliance on elections and the formal institutions of the state.<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" style="color: blue; ">[12]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Esposito ignores this basic foundation of democracy and instead draws inspiration from men such as Indian philosopher Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938), Sudanese religious leader Hasan al-Turabi (1932-), Iranian sociologist Ali Shariati (1933-77), and former Iranian president Muhammad Khatami (1943-), who argue that Islam provides a framework for combining democracy with spirituality to remedy the alleged spiritual vacuum in Western democracies.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" style="color: blue; ">[13]</a> They endorse Khatami's view that democracies need not follow a formula and can function not only in a liberal system but also in socialist or religious systems; they adopt the important twentieth century Indian (and, later, Pakistani) exegete Abu al-A'la al-Mawdudi's concept of a "theo-democracy,"<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" style="color: blue; ">[14]</a> in which three principles:<i> tawhid</i> (unity of God), <i>risala</i>(prophethood) and <i>khilafa</i> (caliphate) underlie the Islamic political system.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" style="color: blue; ">[15]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">But Mawdudi argues that any Islamic polity has to accept the supremacy of Islamic law over all aspects of political and religious life<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" style="color: blue; ">[16]</a>—hardly a democratic concept, given that Islamic law does not provide for equality of all citizens under the law regardless of religion and gender. Such a formulation also denies citizens a basic right to decide their laws, a fundamental concept of democracy. Although he uses the phrase theo-democracy to suggest that Islam encompassed some democratic principles, Mawdudi himself asserted Islamic democracy to be a self-contradiction: the sovereignty of God and sovereignty of the people are mutually exclusive. An Islamic democracy would be the antithesis of secular Western democracy.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" style="color: blue; ">[17]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Esposito and Voll respond by saying that Mawdudi and his contemporaries did not so much reject democracy as frame it under the concept of God's unity. Theo-democracy need not mean a dictatorship of state, they argue, but rather could include joint sovereignty by all Muslims, including ordinary citizens.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" style="color: blue; ">[18]</a> Esposito goes even further, arguing that Mawdudi's Islamist system could be democratic even if it eschews popular sovereignty, so long as it permits consultative assemblies subordinate to Islamic law.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" style="color: blue; ">[19]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">While Esposito and Voll argue that Islamic democracy rests upon concepts of consultation (<i>shura</i>), consensus (<i>ijma'</i>), and independent interpretive judgment (<i>ijtihad</i>), other Muslim exegetes add <i>hakmiya</i> (sovereignty).<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" style="color: blue; ">[20]</a> To support such a conception of Islamic democracy, Esposito and Voll rely on Muhammad Hamidullah (1908-2002), an Indian Sufi scholar of Islam and international law; Ayatollah Baqir as-Sadr (1935-80), an Iraqi Shi'ite cleric; Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938), an Indian Muslim poet, philosopher and politician; Khurshid Ahmad, a vice president of the Jama'at-e-Islami of Pakistan; and Taha al-Alwani, an Iraqi scholar of Islamic jurisprudence.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" style="color: blue; ">[21]</a> The inclusion of Alwani underscores the fallacy of Esposito's theories. In 2003, the FBI identified Alwani as an unindicted co-conspirator in a trial of suspected Palestinian Islamic Jihad leaders and financiers.<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" style="color: blue; ">[22]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Just as Esposito eviscerates the meaning of democracy to enable his thesis, so, too, does he twist Islamic concepts.<i>Shura</i> is an advisory council, not a participatory one. It is a legacy of tribalism, not sovereignty.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" style="color: blue; ">[23]</a> Nor does <i>ijma'</i>express the consensus of the community at large but rather only the elders and established leaders.<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" style="color: blue; ">[24]</a> As for independent judgment, many Sunni scholars deem <i>ijtihad</i> closed in the eleventh century.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" style="color: blue; ">[25]</a></p><h3 style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(173, 48, 49); font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; ">Amplifying Esposito</h3><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Esposito's arguments have not only permeated the Middle Eastern studies academic community but also gained traction with public intellectuals through books written by journalists and policy practitioners.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">In both journal articles and book length works as well as in underlying assumptions within her reporting, former <i>Los Angeles Times</i> and current <i>Washington Post</i> diplomatic correspondent Robin Wright argues that Islamism could transform into more democratic forms. In 2000, for example, she argued in <i>The Last Great Revolution</i> that a profound transformation was underway in Iran in which pragmatism replaced revolutionary values, arrogance had given way to realism, and the "government of God" was ceding to secular statecraft.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" style="color: blue; ">[26]</a> Far from becoming more democratic, though, the supreme leader and Revolutionary Guards consolidated control; freedoms remain elusive, political prisoners incarcerated, and democracy imaginary.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Underlying Wright's work is the idea that neither Islam nor Muslim culture is a major obstacle to political modernity. She accepts both the Esposito school's arguments that <i>shura</i>, <i>ijma'</i>, and <i>ijtihad</i> form a basis on which to make Islam compatible with political pluralism.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" style="color: blue; ">[27]</a> She shares John Voll's belief that Islam is an integral part of the modern world,<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" style="color: blue; ">[28]</a> and she says the central drama of reform is the attempt to reconcile Islam and modernity by creating a worldview compatible with both.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" style="color: blue; ">[29]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">In her article "Islam and Liberal Democracy," she profiles two prominent Islamist thinkers, Rachid al-Ghannouchi, the exiled leader of Tunisia's Hizb al-Nahda (Renaissance Party), and Iranian philosopher and analytical chemist Abdul-Karim Soroush. While she argues that their ideas represent a realistic confluence of Islam and democracy,<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" style="color: blue; ">[30]</a> she neither defines democracy nor treats her cases studies with a dispassionate eye. Ghannouchi uses democratic terms without accepting them let alone understanding their meaning. He remains not a modernist but an unapologetic Islamist.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Wright ignores that Soroush led the purge of liberal intellectuals from Iranian universities in the wake of the Islamic Revolution.<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" style="color: blue; ">[31]</a> While Soroush spoke of civil rights and tolerance, he applied such privileges only to those subscribing to Islamic democracy.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" style="color: blue; ">[32]</a> He also argued that although Islam means "submission," there is no contradiction to the freedoms inherent in democracy. Islam and democracy are not only compatible but their association inevitable. In a Muslim society, one without the other is imperfect. He argues that the will of the majority shapes the ideal Islamic state.<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" style="color: blue; ">[33]</a> But, in practice, this does not occur. As in Iran, many Islamists constrain democratic processes and crush civil society. Those with guns, not numbers, shape the state. Among Arab-Islamic states, there are only authoritarian regimes and patrimonial leadership; the jury is still out on whether Iraq can be a stable exception. Soroush, however, contradicts himself: Although Islam should be an open religion, it must retain its essence. His argument that Islamic law is expandable would be considered blasphemous by many contemporaries who argue that certain principles within Islamic law are immutable. Upon falling out of favor with revolutionary authorities in Iran, he fled to the West. Sometimes, academics only face the fallacy of what sounds plausible in the ivy tower when events force them to face reality.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">What Ghannouchi and Soroush have in common, and what remains true with any number of other Islamist officials, is that, regardless of rhetoric, they do not wish to reconcile Islam and modernity but to change the political order. It is easier to adopt the rhetoric of democracy than its principles.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">While time has proven Wright wrong, the persistence of Esposito exegetes remains. Every few years, a new face emerges to revive old arguments. The most recent addition is Noah Feldman, a frequent media commentator and Arabic-speaking law professor at Harvard University. In 2003, Feldman published <i>After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy</i>, which explores the prospects for democracy in the Islamic world.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34" style="color: blue; ">[34]</a> His thesis rehashes Esposito's 1992 book <i>The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?</i><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35" style="color: blue; ">[35]</a> and the 1996 Esposito-Voll collaboration <i>Islam and Democracy</i>.<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36" style="color: blue; ">[36]</a> Even after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, Feldman argues that the age of violent jihad is past, and Islamism is evolving in new, more peaceful, and democratic directions.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37" style="color: blue; ">[37]</a> Included in Feldman's list of Islamic democrats<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38" style="color: blue; ">[38]</a> is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Islamist theoretician who has endorsed suicide bombing and the murder of homosexuals.<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39" style="color: blue; ">[39]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">While most academic debates do not exit the classroom, the debate over the compatibility of Islam and democracy affects policy. Feldman pushes the conclusion that the Islamist threat is illusionary. Accordingly, he argues that Islamist movements should have a chance to govern.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40" style="color: blue; ">[40]</a> Feldman concludes with the prescription that U.S. policymakers should adopt an inclusive attitude toward political Islam. "An established religion that does not coerce religious belief and that treats religious minorities as equals may be perfectly compatible with democracy," he explained in a September 2003 interview.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41" style="color: blue; ">[41]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Shireen Hunter, a former Iranian diplomat who now directs the Islam program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, also repackages Esposito's general arguments in her book, <i>The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence?</i>,<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42" style="color: blue; ">[42]</a> and, more recently, in <i>Modernization, Democracy, and Islam</i>,<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn43" name="_ftnref43" style="color: blue; ">[43]</a> her edited collection with Huma Malik, the assistant director of Esposito's Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. Both books deny the Islamist threat and try to reconcile Islamic teachings with Western values. She seeks to counter Samuel Huntington's <i>Clash of Civilization</i><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn44" name="_ftnref44" style="color: blue; ">[44]</a> and gives an assessment of the relative role of both conflictual and cooperate factors of Muslim-Western relations. She argues that the fusion of the spiritual and the temporal in Islam is no greater than in other religions. Therefore, the slower pace of democratization in Muslim countries cannot be attributed to Islam itself. Although Hunter acknowledges that Muslim countries have a poor record of modernization and democracy, she blames external factors such as colonialism and the international economic system.<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn45" name="_ftnref45" style="color: blue; ">[45]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Other scholars take obsequiousness to new levels. Anna Jordan, who gives no information about her expertise but is widely published on Islamist Internet sites, argues<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn46" name="_ftnref46" style="color: blue; ">[46]</a> that the Qur'an supports the principles of Western democracy as they are defined by William Ebenstein and Edwin Fogelman, two professors of political science who focus on the ideas and ideologies that define democracy.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn47" name="_ftnref47" style="color: blue; ">[47]</a> By utilizing various Qur'anic verses,<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn48" name="_ftnref48" style="color: blue; ">[48]</a> Jordan finds that the Islamic holy book supports rational empiricism and individual rights, rejects the state as the ultimate authority, promotes the freedom to associate with any religious group, accepts the idea that the state is subordinate to law, and accepts due process and basic equality.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Most of her citations, though, do not support her conclusions and, in some cases, suggest the opposite. Rather than support the idea of "rational empiricism," for example, Sura 17:36 mandates complete submission to the authority of God. Other citations are irrelevant in context and substance to her arguments. Her assertion that the Qur'an assures the "basic equality of all human beings" rests upon verses commanding equality among Muslims and Muslims only, plus a verse warning against schisms among Muslims.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Gudrun Kramer, chair of the Institute of Islamic Studies at the Free University in Berlin, also accepts the Esposito thesis. She writes that the central stream in Islam "has come to accept crucial elements of political democracy: pluralism, political participation, governmental accountability, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights." In her opinion, the Muslim approach to human rights and freedom is more advanced than many Westerners acknowledge.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn49" name="_ftnref49" style="color: blue; ">[49]</a></p><h3 style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(173, 48, 49); font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; ">Islamist Rejection of Esposito's Theory</h3><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Ironically, while Western scholars perform intellectual somersaults to demonstrate the compatibility of Islam and democracy, prominent Muslim scholars argue democracy to be incompatible with their religion. They base their conclusion on two foundations: first, the conviction that Islamic law regulates the believer's activities in every area of life, and second, that the Muslim society of believers will attain all its goals only if the believers walk in the path of God.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn50" name="_ftnref50" style="color: blue; ">[50]</a> In addition, some Muslim scholars further reject anything that does not have its origins in the Qur'an.<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn51" name="_ftnref51" style="color: blue; ">[51]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Hasan al-Banna (1906-49), the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood,<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn52" name="_ftnref52" style="color: blue; ">[52]</a> sought to purge Western influences. He taught that Islam was the only solution and that democracy amounted to infidelity to Islam.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn53" name="_ftnref53" style="color: blue; ">[53]</a> Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), the leading theoretician of the Muslim Brotherhood, objected to the idea of popular sovereignty altogether. He believed that the Islamic state must be based upon the Qur'an, which he argued provided a complete and moral system in need of no further legislation.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn54" name="_ftnref54" style="color: blue; ">[54]</a> Consultation—in the traditional Islamic sense rather than in the manner of Esposito's extrapolations—was sufficient.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Mawdudi, while used by Esposito, argued that Islam was the antithesis of any secular Western democracy that based sovereignty upon the people<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn55" name="_ftnref55" style="color: blue; ">[55]</a> and rejected the basics of Western democracy.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn56" name="_ftnref56" style="color: blue; ">[56]</a> More recent Islamists such as Qaradawi argue that democracy must be subordinate to the acceptance of God as the basis of sovereignty. Democratic elections are therefore heresy, and since religion makes law, there is no need for legislative bodies.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn57" name="_ftnref57" style="color: blue; ">[57]</a> Outlining his plans to establish an Islamic state in Indonesia, Abu Bakar Bashir, a Muslim cleric and the leader of the Indonesian Mujahideen Council, attacked democracy and the West and called on Muslims to wage jihad against the ruling regimes in the Muslim world. "It is not democracy that we want, but Allah-cracy," he explained.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn58" name="_ftnref58" style="color: blue; ">[58]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Nor does acceptance of basic Western structures imply democracy. Under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Islamic Republic adopted both a constitution and a parliament, but their existence did not make Iran more democratic. Indeed, Khomeini continued to wield supreme power and formed a number of bodies—the revolutionary foundations, for example—which remained above constitutional law.</p><h3 style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(173, 48, 49); font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; ">Is Islamic Democracy Possible?</h3><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">The Islamic world is not ready to absorb the basic values of modernism and democracy. Leadership remains the prerogative of the ruling elite. Arab and Islamic leadership are patrimonial, coercive, and authoritarian. Such basic principles as sovereignty, legitimacy, political participation and pluralism, and those individual rights and freedoms inherent in democracy do not exist in a system where Islam is the ultimate source of law.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">The failure of democracies to take hold in Gaza and Iraq justify both the 1984 declaration by Samuel P. Huntington and the argument a decade later by Gilles Kepel, a prominent French scholar and analyst of radical Islam, that Islamic cultural traditions may prevent democratic development.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn59" name="_ftnref59" style="color: blue; ">[59]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Emeritus Princeton historian Bernard Lewis is also correct in explaining that the term democracy is often misused. It has turned up in surprising places—the Spain of General Franco, the Greece of the colonels, the Pakistan of the generals, the Eastern Europe of the commissars—usually prefaced by some qualifying adjective such as "guided," "basic," "organic," "popular," or the like, which serves to dilute, deflect, or even reverse the meaning of the word.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn60" name="_ftnref60" style="color: blue; ">[60]</a></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Islam may be compatible with democracy, but it depends on what is understood as Islam. This is not universally agreed on and is based on a hope, not on reality. Both Turkey and the West African country of Mali are democracies even though the vast majority of their citizens are Muslim. But, the political Islam espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists is incompatible with liberal democracy.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Furthermore, if language has an impact on thinking, then the Middle East will achieve democracy only slowly, if at all. In traditional Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, there is no word for "citizen." Rather, older texts use cognates— in Arabic,<i>muwatin</i>; in Turkish, <i>vatandaslik</i>; in Persian, <i>sharunad</i>— respectively, closer in meaning to the English "compatriot" or "countryman." The Arabic and Turkish come from <i>watan</i>, meaning "country." <i>Muwatin</i>, is a neologism and while it suggests progress, the Western concept of freedom—understood as the ability to participate in the formation, conduct, and lawful removal and replacement of government—remains alien in much of the region.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Islamists themselves regard liberal democracy with contempt. They are willing to accommodate it as an avenue to power but as an avenue that runs only one way.<a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn61" name="_ftnref61" style="color: blue; ">[61]</a> Hisham Sharabi (1927-2005), the influential Palestinian scholar and political activist, has said that Islamic fundamentalism expresses mass sentiment and belief as no nationalist or socialist (and we may add democratic) ideology has been able to do up until now.<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn62" name="_ftnref62" style="color: blue; ">[62]</a></p><h3 style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(173, 48, 49); font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; ">Conclusion</h3><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Why then are so many Western scholars keen to show the compatibility between Islamism and democracy? The popularity of post-colonialism and post-modernism within the academy inclines intellectuals to accommodate Islamism. Political correctness inhibits many from addressing the negative phenomenon in foreign cultures. It is considered laudable to prove the compatibility of Islam and democracy; it is labeled "Islamophobic" or racist to suggest incompatibility or to differentiate between positive and negative interpretations of Islam.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Many policymakers are also conflict-adverse. Islamists exploit the Western cultural desire to accommodate while Western thinkers and policymakers attempt to ameliorate differences by seeking to find common ground in definitions if not reality.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Into the mix comes Islamist propaganda, portraying Islam as peace-loving, embracing of civil rights and, even in its less tolerant forms, compatible with all democratic values. The problem is that the free world ignores the possibility that political Islam can threaten democracy not only in Middle Eastern societies but also in the West. The legitimization of political Islam has lent democratic respectability to an ideology and political system at odds with the basic tenets of democracy.</p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); ">Esposito's statement that "the United States must restrain its one-dimensional attitude to democracy and recognize [that] the authentic roots of democracy exist in Islam"<a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftn63" name="_ftnref63" style="color: blue; ">[63]</a> shows a basic ignorance of both democracy and Islamist teachings. These conclusions are exacerbated when Esposito places blame for the aggressiveness and terrorism of Islamic fundamentalism on the West and on Said's "Orientalists." It is one thing to be wrong in the classroom, but it can be far more dangerous when such wrong-headed theories begin to affect policy.</p><blockquote style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><b>David Bukay</b> is a lecturer in the school of political science at the University of Haifa.</p></blockquote><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="color: blue; ">[1]</a> John L. Esposito, <i>The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?</i> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 211-2; John O. Voll and John L. Esposito, <i>Islam and Democracy</i> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 18-21.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="color: blue; ">[2]</a> Esposito, <i>The Islamic Threat</i>, pp. 211-2; Voll and Esposito, <i>Islam and Democracy</i>, pp. 18-21.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="color: blue; ">[3]</a> Esposito, <i>The Islamic Threat</i>, pp. 211-2; Voll and Esposito, <i>Islam and Democracy</i>, pp. 18-21; John L. Esposito and John O. Voll, "<a href="http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2001-11/islam.html">Islam and Democracy</a>," <i>Humanities</i>, Nov./Dec. 2001.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="color: blue; ">[4]</a> John L. Esposito and James Piscatory, "Democratization and Islam," <i>Middle East Journal</i>, Summer 1991, p. 434; John O. Voll and John L. Esposito "Islam's Democratic Essence," <i>Middle East Quarterly</i>, Sept. 1994, pp. 7-8; Voll and Esposito,<i>Islam and Democracy</i>, pp. 27-30, 186; Esposito and Voll, "<a href="http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2001-11/islam.html">Islam and Democracy</a>"; Esposito, <i>The Islamic Threat</i>, pp. 49-50; John L. Esposito, <i>Islam: The Straight Path</i> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 45, 83, 142-8.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="color: blue; ">[5]</a> John L. Esposito, <i>What Everybody Needs to Know about Islam</i> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 159-61; John L. Esposito, "Contemporary Islam," in John L. Esposito, ed., <i>The Oxford History of Islam</i> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 675-80; Esposito and Piscatory, "Democratization and Islam," p. 440.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="color: blue; ">[6]</a> "Table of <a href="http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=264&year=2006" style="color: blue; ">Independent Countries 2006</a>," <i>Freedom in the World, 2006</i> (Washington, D.C.: Freedom House, 2006).<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="color: blue; ">[7]</a> Esposito, <i>The Islamic Threat</i>, pp. 203-4.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" style="color: blue; ">[8]</a> <a name="_ftn10"></a><a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2651#_ftnref10" style="color: blue; "></a>John L. Esposito, "The Secular Bias of Scholars," <i>The Chronicle of Higher Education</i>, May 26, 1993.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" style="color: blue; ">[9]</a> New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" style="color: blue; ">[10]</a> Voll and Esposito, <i>Islam and Democracy</i>, pp. 6-8, 27-30.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" style="color: blue; ">[11]</a> Larry Diamond, et. al., eds., <i>Democracy in Developing Countries</i> (London: Adamantine Press, 1988), pp. 218-60; Larry Diamond and Leonardo Morlino, "The Quality of Democracy," <i>Journal of Democracy</i>, Oct. 2004; Robert A. Dahl, Ian Shapiro, and Jose Antonio Cheibub, eds., <i>The Democracy Sourcebook</i> (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003).<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" style="color: blue; ">[12]</a> See Robert A. Dahl, <i>On Democracy</i> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998).<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" style="color: blue; ">[13]</a> Esposito, <i>The Oxford History of Islam</i>, pp. 661-7; Esposito, <i>Islam: The Straight Path</i>, pp. 137, 141, 181-3, 231, 245-6; Esposito and Piscatory, "Democratization and Islam," pp. 436-7.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" style="color: blue; ">[14]</a> Abu al-A'la al-Mawdudi, "Political Theory of Islam," in Khurshid Ahmad, ed.,<i> Islam: Its Meaning and Message</i> (London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1976), pp. 159-61.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" style="color: blue; ">[15]</a> Abu al-A'la al-Mawdudi, <i>Islamic Way of Life</i> (Delhi: Markazi Maktaba Islami, 1967), p. 40; Esposito and Piscatory, "Democratization and Islam," pp. 436-7, 440; Esposito, <i>The Islamic Threat</i>, pp. 125-6; Voll and Esposito, <i>Islam and Democracy</i>, pp. 23-6.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" style="color: blue; ">[16]</a> Muhammad Yusuf, <i>Maududi: A Formative Phase</i> (Karachi: the Universal Message, 1979), p. 35.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" style="color: blue; ">[17]</a> Abu al-A'la al-Mawdudi, "Political Theory of Islam," in John J. Donahue and John L. Esposito, eds., <i>Islam in Transition: Muslim Perspective</i> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 253.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" style="color: blue; ">[18]</a> Voll and Esposito, "Islam's Democratic Essence," p. 7.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" style="color: blue; ">[19]</a> Esposito, <i>The Islamic Threat</i>, p. 126.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" style="color: blue; ">[20]</a> Taqi ad-Din Ibn Taymiyah, "<i>Mas'alah fil-'Aql wal-Nafs</i>," in A.A.M. Qasim and M.A.A. Qasim, eds., <i>Majmu'a fatawat Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah</i> (Riyyad: Matba'at al-Hukumah, 1996), vol. 9, pp. 47-9; Abu al-A'la al-Mawdudi, "Political Theory of Islam," in Ahmad, <i>Islam</i>, pp. 149-51; Sayyid Qutb, <i>Milestones</i> (<i>Ma'alim fil Tariq)</i> (Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1990), pp. 111-3, 130-7.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" style="color: blue; ">[21]</a> Voll and Esposito, <i>Islam and Democracy</i>, pp. 27-30, 186; Esposito, <i>The Islamic Threat</i>, pp. 49-50; Esposito, <i>Islam: The Straight Path</i>, pp. 45, 83; Esposito and Piscatory, "Democratization and Islam," p. 434.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" style="color: blue; ">[22]</a> See, for example, J. Michael Waller, Annenberg Professor of International Communication, Institute of World Politics, statement before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, <a href="http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=960&wit_id=2719" style="color: blue; ">Oct. 14, 2003</a>.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" style="color: blue; ">[23]</a> Clifford Edmond Boseworth, <i>The Encyclopedia of Islam</i> (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960), vol. 9, s.v. "shura."<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" style="color: blue; ">[24]</a> M. Bernard, <i>The Encyclopedia of Islam</i> (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960), vol. 3, s.v. "idjma."<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" style="color: blue; ">[25]</a> Joseph Schacht, <i>The Encyclopedia of Islam</i> (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960), vol. 3, s.v. "idjtihad."<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" style="color: blue; ">[26]</a> Robin B. Wright,<i> The Last Great Revolution</i>: <i>Turmoil and Transformation in Iran</i> (London: Vintage, 2001), pp. 256-73, 292-9.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" style="color: blue; ">[27]</a> Robin B. Wright, "<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/rwright.htm" style="color: blue; ">Islam and Liberal Democracy</a>: Two Visions of Reformation," <i>Journal of Democracy</i>, Apr. 1996, pp. 65-7.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" style="color: blue; ">[28]</a> John Voll, <i>Islam: Continuity and Change in Modern World</i> (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1994), pp. 378-87.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" style="color: blue; ">[29]</a> Wright, "<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/rwright.htm" style="color: blue; ">Islam and Liberal Democracy</a>," p. 67.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" style="color: blue; ">[30]</a> Ibid., pp. 67-75.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31" style="color: blue; ">[31]</a> "<a href="http://www.drsoroush.com/English/Interviews/E-INT-19980616-Soroush_Among_Those_for_and_Against.html" style="color: blue; ">Soroush among Those For and Against</a>," interview, <i>Jameah</i> (Tehran), June 16, 17, 1998; John L. Esposito and John O. Voll, <i>Makers of Contemporary Islam</i> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), ch. 7.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32" style="color: blue; ">[32]</a> Abdol Karim Soroush, <i>Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam: Essential Writings of Abdolkarim Soroush</i> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 123-55.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33" style="color: blue; ">[33]</a> Ibid., pp. 245, 247.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34" style="color: blue; ">[34]</a> New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2003.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35" style="color: blue; ">[35]</a> Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36" style="color: blue; ">[36]</a> New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37" style="color: blue; ">[37]</a> Feldman, <i>After Jihad</i>, pp. 222-7; "‘Islamic Democracy' in a New Iraq: An Interview with <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/stake/feldman.html" style="color: blue; ">Noah Feldman</a>," <i>Frontline</i>, Public Broadcasting Service, Sept. 30, 2003.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38" style="color: blue; ">[38]</a> Feldman, <i>After Jihad</i>, p. 182.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39" style="color: blue; ">[39]</a> "<a href="http://www.meforum.org/article/646" style="color: blue; ">The Qaradawi <i>Fatwa</i>s</a>," <i>Middle East Quarterly</i>, Summer 2004, pp. 78-80.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref40" name="_ftn40" style="color: blue; ">[40]</a> Feldman, <i>After Jihad</i>, pp. 210-21, 228-30, 234.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref41" name="_ftn41" style="color: blue; ">[41]</a> "‘Islamic Democracy' in a New Iraq: An Interview with <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/stake/feldman.html" style="color: blue; ">Noah Feldman</a>."<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref42" name="_ftn42" style="color: blue; ">[42]</a> New York: Praeger, 1998.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref43" name="_ftn43" style="color: blue; ">[43]</a> New York: Praeger, 2005.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref44" name="_ftn44" style="color: blue; ">[44]</a> Samuel Huntington, <i>The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order</i> (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref45" name="_ftn45" style="color: blue; ">[45]</a> Hunter, <i>The Future of Islam and the West</i>, pp. 19-28, 106-14.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref46" name="_ftn46" style="color: blue; ">[46]</a> Anna Jordan, "The Principles of <a href="http://www.submission.org/democracy.html" style="color: blue; ">Western Democracy and Islam</a>," Submissions.org, Dec.1998, accessed Nov. 17, 2006.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref47" name="_ftn47" style="color: blue; ">[47]</a> William Ebenstein and Edwin Fogelman, <i>Today's Isms: Communism, Fascism, Capitalism</i> (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980), pp. 170-8.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref48" name="_ftn48" style="color: blue; ">[48]</a> Qur'an 2:190-3; 2:215; 2:272; 3:26; 3:159; 3:195; 4:49-50; 4:52-3; 4:73; 4:71; 4:76; 4:100; 4:135; 9:20; 9:120; 10:98-9; 17:36; 17:53; 25:55; 31:18-9; 38:22-4; 38:26; 42:38; 45:18; 49:11-3.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref49" name="_ftn49" style="color: blue; ">[49]</a> Gudrun Kramer, "Islamic Notions of Democracy," <i>Middle East Report</i>, July-August 1993.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref50" name="_ftn50" style="color: blue; ">[50]</a> Faris Jedaane, "Notions of the State in Contemporary Arab Political Writings," in G. Luciani, ed., <i>The Arab State</i>(London: Routledge, 1990), pp. 247-83; Hamid Enayat, <i>Modern Islamic Political Thought</i> (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982), pp. 69-139.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref51" name="_ftn51" style="color: blue; ">[51]</a> Ahmad, <i>Islam: Its Meaning and Message</i>, pp. 159-61.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref52" name="_ftn52" style="color: blue; ">[52]</a> Richard Mitchell, <i>The Society of the Muslim Brothers</i> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 209-94.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref53" name="_ftn53" style="color: blue; ">[53]</a> Hasan al-Banna, <i>Five Tracts of Hasan al-Banna</i> (Berkeley: California University Press, 1978), pp. 142-54.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref54" name="_ftn54" style="color: blue; ">[54]</a> Sayyid Qutb, <i>Ma'alim ‘alal-Tariq</i> (Karachi: International Islamic publishers, 1988), pp. 73-8, 80-1, 112; Sayed Khatab,<i>The Political Thought of Sayyid Qutb: The Theory of Jahiliyah</i> (London: Routledge, 2006).<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref55" name="_ftn55" style="color: blue; ">[55]</a> Abu al-A'la al-Mawdudi, <i>Political Theory of Islam</i> (Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1976), pp. 13, 15-7, 38, 75-82.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref56" name="_ftn56" style="color: blue; ">[56]</a> Abu al-A'la al-Mawdudi, "Suicide of Western Civilization," in Wakar Ahmad Gardezi and Abdul Wahid Khan, eds.,<i>West versus Islam</i> (New Delhi: International Islamic Publishers, 1992), pp. 61-73.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref57" name="_ftn57" style="color: blue; ">[57]</a> Geneive Abdo, <i>No God but God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam</i> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 107-36.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref58" name="_ftn58" style="color: blue; ">[58]</a> Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), <i>Special Dispatch Series</i>, no. <a href="http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP128506" style="color: blue; ">1285</a>, Sept. 8, 2006.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref59" name="_ftn59" style="color: blue; ">[59]</a> Samuel P. Huntington, "Will More Countries Become Democratic?" <i>Political Science Quarterly,</i> Summer 1984, p. 214; Gilles Kepel, <i>The Revenge of God</i> (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994), p. 194.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref60" name="_ftn60" style="color: blue; ">[60]</a> Bernard Lewis, "Islam and Liberal Democracy: A Historical Overview," <i>Journal of Democracy</i>, Apr. 1996, p. 52.<br /><a title="" href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref61" name="_ftn61" style="color: blue; ">[61]</a> Ibid., pp. 53-7.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref62" name="_ftn62" style="color: blue; ">[62]</a> Hisham Sharabi, <i>Neopatriarchy: A Theory of Distorted Change in Arab Society</i> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 136.<br /><a href="http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be-an-islamic-democracy#_ftnref63" name="_ftn63" style="color: blue; ">[63]</a> Esposito and Voll, <i>Islam and Democracy</i>, p. 31.</p></span></h1><h1 style="margin-bottom: 10px; font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(173, 48, 49); font-size: 17px; font-weight: bold; "><span style="font-size: 85%; ">Review Essay</span></h1><p style="margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><b>by David Bukay<br /><i>Middle East Quarterly</i><br />Spring 2007, pp. 71-79</b></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-48050403749866779992009-02-10T17:42:00.006+03:002009-02-10T17:58:06.411+03:00Mimpi Rasulullah s.a.wDaripada Abdul Rahman Bin Samurah r.a. berkata, Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. bersabda: Sesunguhnya aku telah mengalami mimpi yang MENAKJUBKAN pada malam kelmarin....<br /><br /> * Aku telah melihat seorang dari umatku telah didatangi malaikatul maut untuk mengambil nyawanya, maka malaikat itu terhalang disebabkan KETAATAN KEPADA KEDUA IBU-BAPANYA.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat seorang dari umatku telah disediakan azab kubur, maka ia telah diselamatkan oleh berkat WUDUKNYA.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat seorang dari umatku sedang dikerumuni oleh syaitan-syaitan, maka ia diselamatkan dengan berkat ZIKIRNYA kepada Allah.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat bagaimana umatku diseret oleh malaikatul azab, tetapi SOLATNYA telah melepaskannya dari seksaan itu.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat umatku ditimpa dahaga yang amat berat, setiap kali dia mendatangi satu telaga dihalang dari meminumnya, ketika itu datanglah pahala PUASANYA memberi minum hingga ia merasa puas.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat umatku cuba untuk mendakati kumpulan para nabi yang sedang duduk berkumpul-kumpul, setiap kali dia datang dia akan diusir, maka menjelmalah MANDI JUNUBNYA sambil memimpinnya ke kumpulanku seraya duduk di sebelahku.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat seorang dari umatku berada di dalam keadaan gelap gelita, di hadapannya gelap, di belakangnya gelap, di bawahnya gelap sedangkan dia sendiri dalam keadaan binggung, maka datanglah pahala HAJI DAN UMRAHNYA lalu mengeluarkannya dari kegelapan kepada tempat yang terang benderang.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat umatku cuba berbicara dengan golongan orang mukmin tetapi mereka tidakpun membalas bicaranya, maka menjelmalah SILATURRAHIMNYA lalu menyeru kepada mereka agar menyambut bicaranya, lalu berbicaralah mereka dengannya.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat umatku sedang menepis-nepis percikan api ke mukanya, maka segeralah menjelma pahala SEDEKAHNYA lalu menabiri muka dan kepalanya dari bahaya api tersebut.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat umatku sedang diseret oleh malaikatul zabaniah ke merata tempat, maka datanglah pahala AMAR MA'RUF NAHI MUNGKARNYA seraya menyelamatkan dia dari cengkaman tersebut dan diserahkan kepada malaikat rahmat.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat juga umatku sedang merangkak-rangkak, di antaranya dengan Tuhan dipasangkan hijab, maka menjelmalah BUDI DAN AKHLAKNYA memimpinnya sehingga terbuka hijab tersebut dan masuklah dia bertemu dengan Tuhannya.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat umatku didatangi buku catatan daripada sebelah kiri, tiba-tiba datanglah pahala TAKUTNYA KEPADA ALLAH lalu menukarnya ke sebelah tangan kanan.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat seorang umatku terangkat timbangannya, maka menjelmalah ANAK-ANAKNYA YANG MATI KECIL lalu menekan timbangan hingga menjadi berat.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat umatku sedang berada di tepi neraka jahannam, tiba-tiba muncullah PERASAAN GERUNNYA TERHADAP SEKSAAN ALLAH lalu membawa dia jauh dari tempat itu.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat umatku terjerumus ke lembah neraka, lalu datanglah AIR MATANYA YANG PERNAH MENGALIR KERANA TAKUT KEPADA ALLAH, menyelamatkannya.<br /><br /> * Aku juga melihat umatku sedang meniti titian sirat dalam keadaan tubuhnya terketar-ketar seperti bergoncangnya dedaun yang ditiup angin, maka datanglah pahala BERBAIK SANGKA DENGAN ALLAH lalu mententeramkannya melalui titian tersebut sehingga ke penghujungnya.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat umatku sedang meniti titian sirat dalam keadaan merangkak dan meniarap lalu datanglah SOLATNYA merayu kepadaku dan akupun memimpin tangannya dan mengajaknya berdiri serta berjalan hingga ke hujungnya.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat umatku sudah hampir tiba di pintu syurga tetapi tiba-tiba pintu syurga tertutup, di waktu itu muncullah PENYAKSIANNYA BAHAWA TIADA TUHAN YANG BERHAK DISEMBAH MELAINKAN ALLAH membukakan kembali pintu itu dan diapun memasukinya.<br /><br /> * Aku melihat ramai orang sedang meggunting lidah mereka, aku bertanya kepada Jibril siapa mereka? Jawab Jibril, itulah orang-orang yang suka membawa mulut kesana sini.<br /><br /> * Aku juga melihat orang yang digantung lidah mereka. Aku bertanya kepada Jibril siapa pula mereka? Jawab Jibril itulah pembalasan orang yang suka menabur fitnah kepada orang-orang yang beriman tanpa bukti.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-69437017833975763532009-02-10T14:05:00.006+03:002009-02-10T15:33:00.137+03:00KONSEP NEGARA ISLAMOleh: Dr. Abd. Halim El Muhammady<br />Fakulti Undang-Undang Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia<br /><br />PENDAHULUAN<br />Pembentukan negara Islam adalah suatu tuntutan dalam Islam. Ia termasuk dalam perkara Fardu Kifayah. Kepentingan tentang pembentukan negara Islam ada kaitannya dengan perlaksanaan syariah, kerana syariah tidak dapat dilaksanakan tanpa ada perlaksanaan syariah adalah wajib ke atas Muslim, maka mewujudkan negara Islam adalah suatu yang wajib.<br /><br />Dalam kertas kerja ini perbincangan akan ditumpukan kepada perkara berikut; pengenalan negara Islam, sumber autoriti pembentukannya, syarat-syarat Ketua Negara Islam, pemilihan Ketua Negara, kerakyatan negara dan kedudukan Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara yang bercirikan Islam.<br /><br />PENGENALAN NEGARA ISLAM<br /><br />Istilah Negara Islam "al-dawlah Islamiah" atau "al-Hukumah al-Islamiyyah" tidak didapati penggunaannya dalam Quran. Istilah ini merupakan satu istilah baru yang mula diperkenalkan oleh Muhammad Rashid Rida dalam bukunya, "Caliphate and the Great Imamate"(1). Sungguhpun begitu dalam Al-Quraan terdapat istilah-istilah lain yang boleh menjadi asas kepada persoalan ini seperti istilah khalifah, khulafa atau khalaif (2) dan juga istilah imam (3), yang secara umumnya memberi pengertian sebagai pengganti Allah atau khalifah Allah di bumi atau kepimpinan kerohanian yang terbatas maksudnya untuk perkataan imam(4).<br /><br />Selain daripada istilah-istilah di atas terdapat istilah-istilah lain lagi seperti ulu al-amr, yang bermaksud merujuk kepada pemerintah atau penguasa (6), perkataan hukum (7) atau hukkam yang bermaksud merujuk kepada penghukum adil. Antara istilah yang dipakai dalam Al-Quran yang ada kaitan dengan masalah ini ialah istilah umat (8) yang bermaksud kumpulan manusia yang bersatu berdasarkan agama dan undang-undang (9), istilah kaum (10) yang bermaksud merujuk kepada kumpulan manusia yang tunduk kepada pemimpin. Demkian juga istilah syura (11) yang bermaksud merujuk kepada perbincangan dan permesyuaratan untuk menyelesaikan masalah (12) dan jamaah (13) yang merujuk maksudnya kepada satu kumpulan yang tunduk kepada pemimpin. Kedua-dua istilah disebut dalam Hadith Rasulullah s.a.w.<br /><br />Istilah-istilah yang digunakan dalam dua sumber ini terkandung di dalamnya maksud kuasa, undang-undang atau perlaksanaannya. Dengan kata-kata lain istilah-istilah ini dapat dirumuskan kepada empat perkara besar iaitu autoriti mutlak ialah Allah, manusia sebagai khalifahNya, autoriti diberikan kepada Rasulullah dan khalifah Rasulullah atau umat, hukum syariat atau perlaksanaannya.<br /><br />Para ulama dalam membincangkan teori politik Islam selalunya diletakkan di bawah tajuk al- siyasah wa al- immah, al-ahkam al- sultaniyyah, al-siyasah al-shar'iyyah. Nizam al-hukm fi al-Islam atau nizam al-siyasah fi al-Islam.<br /><br />Dalam tulisan ualma tradisional tidak didapati takrif negara Islam diberikan. Apa yang mereka berikan ialah ciri-cirinya seperti perbincangan mereka tentang ketua negara, syarat-syaratnya, cara pemilihannya, tugasnya dan perkara-perkara lain yang ada kaitan dengan pentadbiran negara. Tetapi di masa kebelakangan ini terdapat cendekiawan Islam yang cuba memberi definisi tentang negara Islam. Maududi ada mentakrifkan negara Islam ialah negara yang kuasa mutlaknya pada Allah S.W.T. yang menentukan syariatnya dan syariat itu dibawa oleh Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. Ia sebuah negara yang bercorak theo-democracy yang tergabung di dalamnya autoriti mutlak pada Allah dan penyerahan autoriti yang terbatas kepada manusia dalam perlaksanaan urusan negara yang diakui oleh syarak.(14)<br /><br />Ayatullah Khomeini pula mentakrifkan bahawa negara Islam tidak ada sebarang persamaan dengan mana-mana sistem kerajaan yang ada. Negara Islam bukanlah autokratik dan tidak menjadikan ketuanya berkuasa penuh sehingga membolehkannya membuat sesuka hati terhadap nyawa dan harta benda orang.<br /><br />Sesebuah negara Islam bebas daripada dispotisme. Ia adalah negara berpelembagaan yang ditafsirkan oleh Parlimen atau badan-badan perwakilan awam. Negara Islam ialah negara berpelembagaan yang ditafsirkan oleh Parlimen atau badan-badan perwakilan awam. Negara Islam ialah negara berpelembagaan dalam ertikata bahawa sesiapa bertanggungjawab mengendalikannya terikat kepada undang-undang dan syarat-syarat yang ditetapkan oleh al-Quran dan al-sunnah (15).<br /><br />Abu Zahrah dalam membincangkan konsep negara Islam dan bukan Islam membawa beberapa pandangan ulama yang terkenal antaranya pandangan Abu Hanifah yang berpendapat bahawa negara bukan Islam ialah ada tiga syarat iaitu:<br /><br />1. Hukum bukan Islam dilaksanakan di negeri tersebut seperti amalan riba, arak, judi dan babi.<br />2. Negeri itu tidak ada perhubungan langsung dengan orang Islam. Malah disegi geografinya terhalang daripada negara Islam. Kalau kawasan bukan Islam itu ada hubungan dan dikelilingi oleh kawasan Islam ia bukannya Dar-al-harb.<br />3. Tidak ada di sana seorang Islam pun atau dhimmi yang boleh hidup dalam keamanan sebagaimana keamanan muslim awal dengan pengikut-pengikutnya.<br /><br />Berdasarkan ini bagi Abu Hanifah berpendapat negara Islam ialah negara yang melaksanakan hukum Islam atau orang Islam atau dhimmi berada dibawah pemerintahan Islam atau pemerintah Islam. Abu Yusuf, Muhammad dan setengah fuqaha lain berpendapat bahawa penentuan negara sama ada negara Islam atau tidak ialah terletak kepada perlaksanaan hukum Islam, jika hukum Islam dilaksanakan maka ia negara Islam dan jika tidak ia bukan negara Islam. Alasan mereka ialah hakikat pembentukan negara ialah daripada asas Islam dan kufur; dinamakan negara Islam jika hukum dan sistem Islam berkuatkuasa dan dinamakan negara bukan Islam jika hukum dan sistem bukan Islam dilaksanakan.(16)<br /><br />Berdasarkan huraian di atas Abu Zahrah membuat kesimpulan bahawa pentafsiran fuqaha tentang negara Islam dan bukan Islam terdapat dua pandangan iaitu:<br /><br />1. Pandangan pertama negara Islam diasaskan kepada perjalanan dan perlaksanaan<br />hukum Islam dan sistemnya, kalau tidak ianya bukan negara Islam.<br />2. Pandangan kedua ialah diasaskan kepada keadaan keamanan Muslim dan kawasannya. Kalau orang Muslim mendapat keamanan sebagaimana keamanan negara Islam awal maka ia adalah negara Islam.<br /><br />Berdasarkan pendapat kedua dalam menentukan negara Islam adalah berasaskan unsur majoriti bilangan Muslim, jika unsur ini ada maka negara itu ialah negara Islam, sekalipun undang-undang dan sistem Islam tidak terlaksana.<br /><br />Abu Zahrah lebih cenderung kepada pendapat Abu Hanifah dan ulama yang sependapat dengannya. Beliau menganggap semua negara yang penduduk Muslim lebih banyak adalah negara Islam sekalipun undang-undang Islam tidak dilaksanakan, tetapi beliau mengharapkan bahawa hukum Al-Quran dan Al-Sunnah supaya lahir di seluruh negara Islam supaya negara Islam itu sempurna mengikut pendapat ijmak bukan mengikut pendapat seorang fakih sahaja sekalipun ia seorang yang hebat.<br /><br />Berdasarkan pandangan Abu Hanifah beliau mengakui bahawa negara Islam merangkumi kawasan daripada Maghribi sebelah barat sehingga Turkistan dan Pakistan di timur(11).<br /><br />SUMBER AUTORITI PEMBENTUKAN NEGARA ISLAM:<br /><br />Al-Quran tidak menyebut secara langsung tentang pembentukan negara Islam. Sungguhpun begitu ulama cuba memahami ayat-ayat yang ada kaitan dengan persoalan ini seperti kekuasaan Allah, undang-undang, nubuwwah, ketaatan, khalifah, umat dan sebagainya dijadikan asas teori kepada pembentukan negara Islam(18).<br /><br />Kebanyakan ulama dalam membincangkan teori pembentukan negara Islam ini sumbernya diambil daripada Hadith dan sirah Rasulullah s.a.w. serta sirah para khulafa al-Rashidun(19).<br /><br />Keperluan kepada Ketua Negara Islam adalah suatu yang tidak dapat dinafikan dan Mawardi ada menjelaskan ini katanya, Ketua Negara (Imamah) digelar sebagai Kahlifah Rasulullah dalam urusan agama dan urusan dunia, pemilihan orang yang akan menjalankan tugas ini adalah wajib mengikut ijmak kecuali pendapat Asam(20).<br /><br />Ibn Hazm berkata bahawa sepakat di kalangan semua ulama ahlul-Sunnah, Murjiah, Syiah dan Khawarij tentang wajib diadakan pemimpin negara. Umat wajib mematuhi imam yang adil yang berupaya menegakkan hukum-hukum Allah dan memerintah berdasarkan hukum-hukum syarak yang dibawa oleh Rasulullah s.a.w.<br /><br />Al-Quran dan al-Sunnah menegaskan tentang wajib kepada pemilihan ketua negara, antaranya firman Allah s.w.t. bermaksud: "Taatlah kepada Allah dan taatlah kepada Rasul serta pemimpin-pemimpin urusan kamu", demikian juga hadis-hadis sahih banyak yang memerintah supaya taat kepada ketua negara(22).<br /><br />Berdasarkan kepada nas-nas dan huraian-huraian yang diberikan oleh ulama menunjukkan bahawa keperluan kepada ketua negara dan pemilihannya adalah merupakan satu tuntutan hukum yang mesti dilaksanakan oleh umat.<br /><br />SYARAT KELAYAKAN KETUA NEGARA ISLAM:<br /><br />Ketua Negara Islam dipanggil dengan berbagai gelaran seperti Khalifah Amir al-Mukminin dan Imam.<br /><br />Para ulama ada menentukan beberapa syarat untuk melayakkan seseorang memegang jawatan ketua negara. Syarat-syarat itu ada yang disepakati oleh mereka dan ada pula syarat yang mereka tidak sepakati pendapat. Syarat-syarat itu ialah:<br /><br />1. Keupayaan jasmani; seseorang itu mestilah sempurna pancaindera dan selamat anggota badannya, tidak ada sebarang kecacatan yang boleh menghalang tugasnya sebagai ketua negara iaitu kecacatan seperti gila, buta, pekak, tuli, hilang dua tangan, dua kaki atau dua biji kemaluan(23).<br /><br />2. Kelayakan undang-undang sempurna iaitu ia seseorang memenuhi syarat-syarat berikut:<br />a. Seseorang Islam; kerana tugas utama ketua negara ialah untuk melaksanakan syariat. Tugas ini hanya dapar dilakukan oleh ketua negara Muslim.<br />b. Merdeka; iaitu dia bukannya hamba, kerana hamba tidak mempunyai kelayakan undang-undang.<br />c. Seorang lelaki; Ijmak ulama berpendapat bahawa jawatan khalifah hanya sah dipegang oleh lelaki, kerana jawatan ini disegi beban tugasnya tidak sesuai dengan keadaan kaum wanita.<br />d. Cukup umur; iaitu dia seorang Mukallaf yang terikat dengan kewajipan hukum syarak (taklif), bukannya kanak-kanak yang tidak terikat dengan kewajipan hukum syarak.<br /><br />3. Kelayakan ilmiah; iaitu kelayakan dalam bidang ilmu yang sampai ke tahap mampu berijtihad. Mengikut kenyataan Ibn Khaldun bahawa khalifah ialah orang yang melaksanakan hukum Allah. Dia dapat melaksanakannya bila dia mengetahui dan tidak mungkin dapat dilaksanakannya bagi orang yang tidak mengetahui. Untuk itu dia hendaklah seorang yang mujtahid bukannya seorang muqallid. Kerana sifat taqlid adalah suatu kecacatan, sedangkan jawatan ketua negara memerlukan kesempurnaan dalam semua hal(24).<br /><br />4. Adil; iaitu seorang yang tinggi budi pekerti dan akhlaknya yang merangkumi ciri taqwa dan warak. Mawardi berpendapat bahawa adil disini ialah dia seorang yang bercakap benar, amanah pada zahirnya, bersih diri daripada perkara haram dan daripada perkara dosa, juga bersih daripada perkara yang meragukan, sentiasa tenang dan keadaan biasa dan dalam keadaan marah, kualiti maruahnya dihayati dalam urusan agama dan dunia(25).<br /><br />5. Menguasai ilmu siasah, peperangan dan pentadbiran. Ibn Khaldun dalam memberi penjelasan dalam syarat ini berpendapat bahawa ketua negara (Imam) hendaklah menegakkan hukum Allah (hudud), mahir dalam peperangan, dapat memimpin di medan perang, megetahui tentang kekuatan dan kelemahannya, tegas dalam membuat keputusan politik. Maka dengan ini semua dapat dia menjaga agama, berjihad menentang musuh, menegakkan syariat dan mentadbir untuk maslahat umat(26). Mawardi pula menjelaskan syarat ini dengan kenyataan bahawa ketua negara (Imam) hendakalah mempunyai pemikiran yang tajam untuk menjaga siasah umat, pentadbiran yang menjamin kemaslahatannya, berani, berupaya mempertahankan negara dan berjihad menentang musuh(27).<br /><br />6. Keturunan Quraisy; Syarat ini diterima secara ijma' oleh jumhur ulama. Seseorang yang dipilih untuk menjadi ketua negara mestilah dari keturunan Quraisy, kerana syarat ini telah disetujui secara ijma' oleh sahabat dalam pemilihan Abu Bakar sebagai Khalifah di Saqifah.<br /><br />Enam syarat yang disebutkan di atas adalah syarat yang disepakati oleh jumhur ulama, tetapi memandangkan kepada perkembangan yang berlaku dalam sejarah politik umat Islam dirasakan oleh sebahagian ulama ada syarat-syarat yang tidak boleh diterima sepenuhnya kerana keadaan dan suasana masyrakaat Islam telah berubah. Antara syarat itu ialah syarat keturunan Quraisy. Syarat ini telah ditolak oleh golongan Khawarij. Ibn Khaldun dalam memberikan pandangan tentang syarat ini berkata bahawa syarat ini dapat diterima selama kekuatan ada pada golongan Quraisy yang berupaya mengikat dan menyatukan umat (Asabiyyah wa al-Ghalab). Kita mengetahui bahawa perkara ini Allah tidak menetapkan kepada generasi tertentu dan umat tertentu. Oleh itu orang yang disyaratkan untuk memimpin dan mentadbir urusan umat ialah orang yang mempunyai kekuatan dan keupayaan menguasai orang lain pada zamannya dan mereka itu tunduk kepadanya dan bersatu dengan pengawalan dan penjagaannya(28).<br /><br />Selain daripada syarat keturunan Quraisy, syarat kelayakan ilmu sampai ke tahap ijtihad juga diperbahaskan. Syarat ini dirasakan tidak mudah untuk dicapai. Justeru itu terdapat di kalangan ulama yang berpendapat seorang ketua negara tidak semestinya mampu berijtihad tetapi hendaklah dibantu oleh seorang yang mempunyai kelayakan ilmu sampai ke tahap ijtihad untuk menyelesaikan keperluan dan perlaksanaan hukum Allah(29).<br /><br />PEMILIHAN KETUA NEGARA:<br /><br />Golongan Ahlul-Sunnah dan jumhur ulama berpendapat bahawa ketua negara hendaklah dipilih secara pilihanraya. Pada pendapat mereka pemilihan Khalifah merupakan ikatan kontrak di antara Khalifah dan umat. Justeru itu istilah yang dipakai dalam kontrak ini "Bai'ah"(30). Berdasarkan ini, kedaulatan Khalifah adalah didapati daripada umat, umat merupakan sumber kekuasaan yang sebenar dan ikatan di antara umat dengan ketua negara adalah ikatan "Kontrak Sosial"(31). Abdul Wahab Khallaf ada menjelaskan tentang kedudukan Khalifah dalam Islam, bahawa ketua negara dalam pemerintahan Islam adalah kedudukannya sama dengan pemerintahan negara-negara yang berpelembagaan kerana Khalifah mendapat kuasa kedaulatannya daripada umat yang diwakilkan kepada "Ahlul-Hal wa al-Aqd". Kedauatan itu kekal bergantung kepada kepercayaan mereka dan keupayannya dalam pemerintahan untuk menjaga kemaslahatan umat. Justeru itu ulama menetapkan bahawa umat boleh melucutkan Khalifah daripada jawatannya dengan sebab-sebab tertentu, kalau pemecatan itu boleh membawa fitnah kepada umat, maka ketika itu hendaklah dilihat mana yang lebih ringan mudaratnya(32).<br /><br />Dalam pemilihan khalifah, terlibat di dalamnya tiga golongan manusia:<br />1. Calon Khalifah yang mencukupi syarat.<br />2. Anggota pemilih yang dipanggil oleh Mawardi "Ahlul-Hal wa al-aqd".<br />3. Orang awam Muslim(33).<br /><br />CALON KHALIFAH<br /><br />Syarat bagi calon Khalifah telahpun dibincang sebelumnya.<br /><br />SYARAT ANGGOTA PEMILIHAN DAN TUGASNYA:<br /><br />Anggota "Ahlul-Hal wa al-Aqd" perlu memenuhi beberapa syarat untuk melayakkannya memilih ketua negara supaya pemilihannya tepat. Mengikut penjelasan Mawardi mereka perlu memenuhi tiga syarat iaitu:<br /><br />1. Adil. Sifat adil yang dikehendaki di sini ialah sebagaimana sifat adil yang<br />diperlukan pada Khalifah.<br /><br />2. Berilmu iaitu ilmu yang membolehkannya untuk menilai calon yang layak untuk memegang jawatan ketua negara dengan mengambil kira syarat-syarat yang diperlukan.<br /><br />3. Kecekapan dan kebijaksanaan dalam memilih calon yang layak dan memilih yang lebih baik, lebih berpengetahuan untuk kebaikan dan kemaslahatan umat(34).<br /><br />Tugas mereka ialah memilih dan menentukan calon yang layak untuk jawatan itu. Apabila mereka bermesyuarat untuk memilih calon hendaklah meneliti syarat-syarat yang ada pada calon dan memilih serta memberi persetujuan terhadap calon yang lebih baik dan lebih lengkap syarat-syaratnya.<br /><br />Bilangan anggota "Ahlul-Hal wa al-Aqd", ulama tidak sepakat. Pendapat Mawardi menjelaskan bahawa ulama tidak sepakat pendapat tentang bilangan anggota yang memilih ketua negara (Imam); ada terdapat beberapa pendapat; ada golongan yang berpendapat bahawa tidak sah calon ketua negara melainkan pemilihnya dipersetujui oleh semua anggota ƒAhl al-Hal wa al-Aqd≈ dari setiap negeri supaya persetujuan itu berlaku secara menyeluruh dan penyerahan kuasa kepadanya secara ijmak. Pendapat ini bercanggah dengan apa yang berlaku dalam<br />pemilihan Khalifah Abu Bakr. Dia telah dipilih oleh anggota yang hadir sahaja dan mereka tidak menunggu anggota yang lain lagi. Ada pendapat yang mengatakan sekurang-kurangnya bilangan anggota yang memilih ialah lima orang yang semuanya sepakat membuat pemilihan atau seorang sahaja yang membuat pemilihan dan anggota yang lain bersetuju dengan pemilihannya.<br /><br />Pendapat ini bersandarkan kepada dua alasan; pertama cara pemilihan Abu Bakr yang dilakukan oleh lima orang kemudian diikuti oleh orang lain seperti Umar al-Khattab, Abu Ubaidah al-Jarrah, Asid Hudair, Bashir Sa'ad, Salim Maula, Abu Huzaifah. Kedua Umar melantik enam orang anggota syura supaya seorang daripada mereka memilih untuk jawatan Khalifah dengan persetujuan dengan lima anggota yang lain. Pendapat ini dipersetujui oleh kebanyakan fuqaha dan mutakallimin daripada ulama Basrah. Ada pendapat lain daripada ulama Kufah memadai pemilihan dilakukan oleh tiga orang anggota sahaja dengan seorang memilih dan dipersetujui dengan dua orang yang lain. Mereka dianggap sebagai seorang Hakim dan dua orang saksi, sebagaimana sah aqad nikah dengan seorang wali dan dua orang saksi.<br /><br />Ada pendapat lain pula yang menyatakan bahawa sah pemilihan itu dibuat seorang anggota sahaja. Ini berdasarkan kepada Abbas yang berkata kepada Ali: ƒhulurkan tangan engkau aku memberi kesetiaan kepada angkau≈. Orang berkata, ƒBapa saudara Rasulullah memberi kesetiaan kepada anak saudaranya, maka jangan kamu mempertikaikan keduanya. Itu adalah hukum dan ia adalah sah≈(35).<br /><br />Sah dengan pemilihan seorang anggota bukan bermakna calon yang dipilih telah sah menjadi ketua negara. Apa yang berlaku dalam pemilihan Abu Bakr kalau pencalonan Umar tidak dipersetujui oleh pihak lain, kelompok kaum akan bertelagah dan tidak dapat ditentukan mana satu golongan yang kuat dan mana pula yang lemah.<br /><br />Justeru itu ikatan Imamah tidak akan berlaku, sedangkan syarat utama ikatan itu ialah perlu adanya kekuatan ƒShaukah≈, kesatuan hati, kesepakatan zahir dan batin untuk itu, kerana tujuan tuntutan mewujudkan Imam ialah untuk menyatukan umat ketika berlakunya pertentangan kerana dorongan nafsu. Kuasa tidak dapat ditegakkan tanpa persetujuan majoriti yang diambil kira pada setiap zaman(36).<br /><br />MASYARAKAT AWAM<br /><br />Pemilihan ketua negara tidak terhenti setakat pemilihan anggota ƒAhl al-Hal wa al-Aqd≈, tetapi ia memerlukan proses persetujuan rakyat umum terhadap calon yang telah dipilih oleh anggota ƒAhl al-Hal wa al-Aqd≈. Persetujuan majoriti umat ini dilakukan secara terbuka sebagaimana yang berlaku pada pemilihan ini seorang calon ketua negara disahkan menjadi ketua negara Islam.<br /><br />PENYERAHAN KUASA DARIPADA KHALIFAH KEPADA PENGGANTINYA<br /><br />Pemilihan ketua negara Islam mengikut proses pilihanraya tidak selamanya berlaku, tetapi terdapat Khalifah menyerahkan kuasanya kepada penggantinya sebelum dia meninggal. Sebilangan besar di kalangan fuqaha« menerimany sebagai sah. Mawardi ada menjelaskan tentang ini katanya, ƒAdapun menyerah kuasa Imamah kepada orang tertentu yang dipilihnya, mengikut ijmak adalah sah kerana ada dua alasan; pertama Abu Bakr menyerahkan kuasa kepada Umar dan umat Islam menerima penyerahan itu sebagai sah. Kedua, Umar menyerahkan kuasa kepada anggota ahli syura, mereka menerimanya dan mereka adalah orang yang penting ketika itu dengan berkeyakinan bahawa penyerahan itu adalah sah, sedangkan sebahagian sahabat yang lain tidak termasuk anggota ahli syura. Justeru itu penyerahan kuasa demikian dikira sebagai ijmak(38).<br /><br />Penyerahan kuasa ada juga berlaku dalam pemerintahan Islam dalam warisan apabila negara Islam menerima system beraja dalam pemerintahannya. Pemindahan kuasa secara warisan ini juga diterima oleh ulama sebagai sah. Demikan juga jika kuasa pemerintahan itu dipegang oleh orang yang kuat dan mengisytiharkan dirinya sebagai ketua negara, mengikut Abu Ya«ala al-Fara adalah sah dan meletakkan keadaan ini sebagai satu suasana dharurah yang mengharuskan membuat perkara yang dilarang(39).<br /><br />Imam Ghazali juga ada memberi pandangan tentang ini. Beliau berpendapat bahawa apabila syarat-syarat yang diperlukan untuk kelayakan seorang menjadi ketua tidak dapat dipenuhi dan kuasa itu dipegang oleh seorang yang mempunyai kekuatan (shaukah) dan fasik, sesiapa yang melantiknya maka pemarintahannya sah sebagaimana sahnya pemerintahan orang yang zalim (bughat)(40).<br /><br />KERAKYATAN NEGARA ISLAM:<br /><br />Kerakyatan negara Islam diasaskan di atas dua asas; pertama kepercayaan agama dan kedua ialah ikatan perjanjian kemasyarakatan di mana seseorang itu berada. Kerakyatan bagi Muslim ialah kerana kepercayaan agama dan bagi bukan Muslim kerakyatannya melalui ikatan perjanjian kemasyarakatan yang dipanggil ƒAqd al-Dhimmah≈. Dengan perjanjian ini mereka menjadi rakyat negara Islam seperti Muslim yang mendapat hak dan menanggung tanggungjawab.<br /><br />Adapun golongan bukan Islam yang dating ke negara Islam untuk mendapat perlindungan maka mereka diletakkan di bawah perjanjian khas yang dipanggil ƒAdq al-Musta«min≈. Dengan perjanjian ini mereka diberi perlindungan dan mereka hidup mengikut ajaran agamanya(41).<br /><br />Golongan bukan Islam yang mendapat taraf kerakyatan diberi kebebasan bersuara dan memberi pendapat, bebas beragama, boleh melakukan ibadat di rumah mereka dan menghayati syiar agamanya. Mereka boleh mengikut ajaran agamanya dalam bidang muamalat dan acara selama mereka tidak membawa masalah pertikaiannya kepada pihak Islam. Pemerintahan Islam berkewajipan melindungi mereka di segi nyawa dan harta daripada pencerobohan. Kalau mereka diceroboh, hukuman qisas dikenakan ke atas penjenayah, dibayar ganti rugi kepadanya jika berlaku pembunuhan. Jika jenayah melibatkan harta dibayar ganti rugi atau dipulangkan jika masih ada. Pemerintahan Islam juga berkewajipan melindungi mereka daripada serangan luar. Mereka berhak mendapat tempat tinggal, hak bermaustatin, hak berpindah dalam negara Islam selain daripada Mekkah dan Semenanjung Tanah Arab secara amnya. Perempuan mereka dibenarkan berkahwin dengan lelaki Muslim dan sembelihan mereka harus dimakan jika mereka daripada golongan Ahl al-Kitab. Mereka boleh mewarisi harta di antara mereka dan saksi mereka diterima dalam keadaam darurah dan mereka dikenakan hukuman jenayah Islam. Mereka diminta supaya menjaga kedudukan masyarakat Islam supaya tidak terganggu, menjaga keamanan dalam negeri dan daripada gangguan pihak luar. Mereka tidak dibenarkan memperdaya Muslim supaya menganut agama mereka atau menghalang kafir dhimmi daripada menganut Islam. Mereka ditegah daripada mendedahkan perbuatan mungkar dalam semua bentuknya, atau membina rumah ibadat lain daripada tempat yang dipersetujuinya(42).<br /><br />Golongan kafir dhimmi ini merangkumi penganut Yahudi, Kristian dan Majusi. Demikian juga kaum musyrik selain daripada musyrik Arab. Ibn al-Qaiyyum dalam mengulas pandanagn mereka yang berpendapat bahawa orang musyrik termasuk dalam golongan kafirdhimmi katanya, Hukum tentang Ahl al-Kitab diambil daripada al-Qur«an dan hokum tentang semua golongan kafir diambil daripada Sunnah. Rasulullah mengambil Jizyah daripada orang Majusi yang menyembah api, dari sudut ini (kepercayaan) mereka tidak ada beza dengan golongan musyrik yang lain(43).<br /><br />PRINSIP-PRINSIP NEGARA ISLAM<br /><br />Negara islam ditegakkan di atas empat prinsip yang penting<br />1. Prinsip Syura<br />2. Prinsip Keadilan<br />3. Kebebasan<br />4. Persamaan<br />1. Prinsip Syura<br /><br />Asas kepada prinsip syura ini ialah firman Allah s.w.t. Maksudnya: "Bermesyuaratlah dengan mereka dalam satu-satu urusan"(44) dan firmanNya yang bermaksud, "Dan urusan mereka hendaklah bermesyuarat di antara mereka"(45).<br /><br />Ayat-ayat ini memerintahkan supaya bermesyuarat dalam perkara yang melibatakan urusan orang-orang Muslaim. Dalam amalan Rasulullah s.a.w, prinsip ini adalah dijalankan, baginda bermesyuarat dengan sahabat-sahabatnya dalam urusan-urusan kepentingan umat dan negara seperti dalam peristiwa peperangan Badar(46) dan Uhud(47). Demikian juga amalan para sahabat-sahabat, banginda Abu Bakar bermesyuarat untuk mengambil tindakan ke atas orang-orang murtad(48), Saidina Umar bermesyuarat untuk menyelesaikan tanah rampasan perang≈.<br /><br />Mereka juga bermesyuarat untuk mengambil tindakan mengumpul(49) dan menyalin menyusun al Qur«an(50).<br /><br />Jadi, amalan prinsip syura ini adalah lumrah dalam pimpinan Islam dalam segenap peringkatnya.<br /><br />2. Prinsip Keadilan(Justice)<br />Keadilan yang dimaksudkan di sini,ialah keadilan mutlak yang digariskan oleh Islam yang mengatasi segala kepentingan peribadi,keluarga,kelompok dan sebagainya,sekalipun terhadap musuh dan terhadap golongan non-muslim. Allah berfirman maksudnya,≈Apabila kamu memberi saksi hendaklah dengan adil sekalipun hal itu mengenai keluarga.Janji Tuahn hendaklah kamu patuhi. Itulah yang dipertingkatkan kepada kamu,mudah-mudahan kamu ingat≈(52). Rasullah s.a.w. bersabda maksudnya,≈Siapa yang menyakiti Dhimmi akulah musuhnya≈(53). Maka prinsip keadilan ini menjadi asas dalam amalan pemerintahan Islam yang melibatkan seluruh golongan dalam masyarakat.<br /><br />3. Kebebasan<br />Prinsip kebebasan juga menjadi asas amalan dalam pemerintahan Islam. Kebebasan itu diberikan kepada rakyat yang tunduk dibawah pemerintahan Islam sama ada dari golongan Muslim atau bukan Muslim. Oleh sebab manusia diberi hak kebebasan memilih maka hal ini perlu diberikan kepada semua individu. Islam memberi kebebasan beragama, kebebasan dalam memiliki harta, kebebasan bergerak dan berpindah(54). Kebebasan bercakap dan memberi pendapat hendaklah dalam ruang yang tidak mencabuli kepentingan undang-undang syara« dan ketenteraman kehidupan masyarakat yang menjadi asas kepada undang-undang negara. Kalau<br />pendapat itu tidak lagi diberi peluang,kerana itu akan menjejaskan autoriti dan masyarakat Islam. Kebebasan itu adalah dengan falsafah negara, system politik dan perundangannya. Lantaran itu mereka yang murtad dalam negara Islam dianggap sebagai pengkhianat (treason).<br /><br />4. Persamaan<br />Prinsip persamaan ini ialah setiap kaum adalah sama sebagai rakyat di antara satu sam lain dalam hak,kebebasan dan tanggungjawab di hadapan undng-undang.Islam dalam melaksanakan prinsip ini secara umumnya berlaku dalam kehidupan rakyat negara Islam tetapi dalam beberapa hal ada perbezaaannya di antara rakyat yang mendokong negara dan rakyat yang tidak mendokong ideology negara tetapi patuh kepada pimpinan negara.Prinsip equality ini diterima oleh Islam dalam konteks penyelarasan dalam perhubungan manusia secara umum. Allah berfirman maksudnya, ƒHai manusia, sesungguhnya Kami jadikan kamu dari golongan lelaki dan perempuan.Kami jadikan kamu dari berbagai bangsa dan suku kaum,supaya kamu<br />dari berkenalan,sesungguhnya yang paling mulia di antara kamu disisi Tuhan ialah bertaqwa≈(55). Manusia tidak ada bezanya di antara satu dengan yang lain dalam penilaian Allah di segi keturunan,warna kulit,bahasa dan kebudayaan,tapi perbezaan itu terletak kepada ketaqwaannya.<br /><br />Rasullah s.a.w. bersabda maksudnya, "Kamu semua dari Adam dan Adam dari tanah,tidak ada perbezaan di antara orang Arab dengan orang bukan Arab kecuali dengan taqwa≈(56). Berdasarkan prinsip inilah Rasulullah s.a.w.menegaskan dalm perlaksanaan undang-undang dalm sabdanya yang bermaksudnya, "Demi Allah sekiranya Fatimah mencuri aku potong tangannya≈(57).<br /><br />Dan nabi pernah melaksanakan hokum rejam kerana kesalahan berzina ke atas Muslim dan non-Muslim(58).<br /><br />MALAYSIA SEBUAH NEGARA ISLAM<br /><br />Berdasarkan kepada pandangan Muhamad Abu Zahrah yang meletakkan cirri Islam berasaskan kepada majoriti penduduk Muslim dan keamanan, maka Malaysia juga merupakan sebuah negara Islam bukan sahaja dilihat di segi pendudukan majoriti Muslim dan keamanan, tetapi juga dilihat daripada pengalaman sejarah, kedudukan undang-undangnya serta pemimpin negara Muslim.<br /><br />PENGHAYATAN ISLAM DI ZAMAN KESULITAN MELAYU<br /><br />Dari sudut sejarahnya selepas kedatangan Islam dan pembentukan Kerajaan Melaka yang bercorak keislaman, kita dapati proses Islamisasi di bidang undang-undang, sosio-budaya dan pilitik berterusan berlaku. Dalam bidang undang-undang dimulai dengan undang-undang Kanun Melaka & Kanun Laut Melaka, diikuti pula dengan Kanun Pahang dan seterusnya Kanun Kota Setar dan lain-lain. Demikian juga dengan perlembagaan Terengganu & Perlembagaan Negeri Johor. Perubahan dalam bidang sosio-budaya juga berlaku di mana orang Melayu telah menghayati nilai-nilai akhlak Islam dalam kehidupan yang terangkum dalam adab-adab kehidupan mereka seperti adab berpakaian, adab berbahasa, adab berjiran dan sebagainya. Dalam bidang politik, pemerintah dianggap sebagai pemerintah di mana kekuasaan politik itu merupakan satu amanah Allah dan para pemimpin diminta bertindak mengikut lunas-lunas yang digariskan oleh Islam.<br /><br />PENGHAYATAN ISLAM BERTERUSAN BERLAKU DI ZAMAN PENJAJAHAN<br /><br />Proses Islamisasi Undang-undang & Sosio-Budaya dan Politik tergugat dengan kedatangan penjajah British, tetapi tidak banyak terjejas di zaman Portugis dan Belanda. Di zaman penjajahan British peranan Undang-undang Islam diperkecilkan bidang perlaksanaannya & golongan yang terlibat dengan Undang-undang Islam, iaitu hanya untuk orang-orang Islam dan bidangnya hanya bidang undang-undang diri dan kekeluargaan. Sesungguhnya begitu, kita dapati dalam bidang-bidang yang lain, seperti pendidikan agama, kehidupan keagamaan dan kehidupan individu dan keluarga serta masyarakat masih diberi ruang untuk dihayati dan tidak diganggu-gugat. Justeru itulah kita dapati perkembangan Islam dan penghayatannya masih dapat dipertahankan.<br /><br />PENGHAYATAN ISLAM DI ZAMAN KEMERDEKAAN<br /><br />Kemerdekaan Malaysia yang dicapai pada 31 Ogos 1957 adalah usaha daripada UMNO, yang dipimpin oleh Tungku Abdul Rahman. UMNO cuba menunjukkan kekuatannya kepada pihak berkuasa British dengan menggabungkan parti China (MCA) dan parti India (MIC) dalam gagasan ƒPerikatan≈, dengan mengekalkan identity parti masing-masing dalam perkara-perkara tertentu.<br /><br />Berasaskan perikatan ini didapati penyarikatan kuasa politik berlaku antara etnik China, India dan Melayu, tetapi walau bagaimanapun UMNO masih merupakan kuasa politik dominan dalam pemerintahan. Sejak daripada tahun 1957 sehingga kini kedominan parti UMNO dapat dipertahankan dalam menguasai pemerintahan negara. Sungguhpun UMNO sebuah parti secular, pendukung-pendukungnya adalah dari golongan Melayu Muslim yang masih sensitif kepada Islam kerana adanya sensitivity ini didapati kedudukan Islam dan orang Melayu Islam ada keistimewaan-keistimewaan tertentu dan begitu juga intitusi-intitusi Islam di peringkat negeri dan pusat masih diberi kedudukannya yang tersendiri.<br /><br />Sejak daripada tercapainya kemerdekaan, perhatian kepada pembangunan masyarakat Islam terus berlaku dalam bidang pendidikan, ekonomi dan sosial. Cuma yang agak tersekat dalam proses Islamisasi ialah bidang undang-undang yang disegi kenyataannya untuk dibuat perubahan secara menyeluruh terhalang disebabkan beberapa peruntukan yang ditinggalkan oleh penjajah dalam perlembagaan, Undang-undang Federal dan Pusat.<br /><br />Undang-undang yang agak ketara percanggahannya adalah di bidang jenayah hudud, adapun di bidang jenayah membunuh & mencederakan sebahagian daripada prinsip dan hukumnya tidak banyak beza dengan Islam, demikian juga dalam hukum ta'zir kesalahan-kesalahan maksiat. Selain daripada itu dalam muamalat hanya unsure riba yang ketara bercanggah dengan Islam, tetapi dalam bahagian yang lain tidak banyak percanggahannya. Dalam bidang kekeluargaan didapati sepenuhnya undang-undang Islam dilaksanakan, kecuali negeri yang masih berpegang, kepada adat perpatih.<br /><br />Dalam proses meneruskan Islamisasi di bidang undang-undang didapati peruntukan-peruntukan khas diwujudkan untuk kepentingan Islam dan masyarakat Islam seperti Akta Bank Islam, Akta Takaful, Falsafah Pendidikan Negara, Akta Universiti Antarabangsa, Akta Kooperasidan sebagainya. Melihat kepada perkembangan ini ternyata proses Islamisasi berterusan berjalan dengan adanya ruang peruntukan dalam Undang-undang Negeri & Persekutuan, Cuma yang perlu diusahakan ialah bahagian-bahagian tertentu dalam Undang-undang Federal, Perlembagaan dan undang-undang Negeri yang menghalang perlaksanaan Islam yang menyeluruh perlu dipinda.<br /><br />SISTEM DEMOKRASI & PENGHAYATAN ISLAM<br /><br />Selepas merdeka kita didedahkan dengan system demokrasi berparlimen, yang ditaja oleh penjajah British sebelum Malaysia diberi kemerdekaan. Untuk melaksanakan sistem demokrasi dalam pemerintahan maka parti politik ditubuhkan. Dalam system berparti ini terdapat peruntukan untuk parti pemerintah & parti pembakang. Dilihat dari sudut Islam sistem demokrasi ini dapat diterima dari satu sudut iaitu memberi suara kepada rakyat memilih pemimpin mereka secara bebas dan terbuka tetapi yang tidak cocok dengan Islam ialah ia membelah umat berterusan kepada dua kelompok, kelompok pemerintah dan kelompok pembangkang yang menentang pemerintah dalam ruang terbatas. Sedangkan dalam Islam mengajak kepada kesatuan umat dan mendekatkan jurang pemisahan di antara kelompok, bukan meluaskan jurang.<br /><br />Walau bagaimanapun kenyataan ini wujud di hadapan kita dan kita terpaksa menerima sistem ini dengan dibuat perhitungan bahawa sistem ini bukan suatu kebenaran mutlak dan ia adalah tajaan penjajah yang masih meneruskan polisinya "divide & rule". Dalam percaturan politik yang berlaku sekarang ini orang Melayu Muslim masih mengusai kuasa politik negara di peringkat pusat dan negeri, golongan lain dalam ikatan barisan masih berada di bawah kawalan kerajaan kecuali beberapa buah negeri seperti Sabah & Kelantan yang dikuasai pembangkang.<br /><br />Kalau diambil asas yang masakini iaitu kuasa politik Melayu Muslim masih ada sebagai titik tolak untuk menyatukan Kelompok Islam, dengan mengambil kira Islam sebagai asas dalam penyelesaian kuasa politik dan cuba menjauhkan titik-titik perbezaan serta mencari titik-titik persamaan yang membina, maka dirasakan ini lebih bermanfaat untuk kekuatan masa depan politik orang Islam. Kalau tidak kita berterusan menjadi alat idea penjajah ƒdivide & rule≈ yang kita sendiri memecahkan kelompok kita dengan tangan kita sendiri. Oleh itu bagi memudahkan proses penyatuan umat di masa depan kita perlu menerima sebagai suatu kenyataan bahawa negara ini ialah sebuah negara Islam. Dengan menerima negara ini sebagai sebuah negara Islam bukan bermakna ianya telah selesai segala tuntutannya. Kesempurnaannya perlu kepada pengisian daripada kita, sama juga seorang Muslim yang diakui sebagai Muslim selepas mengucap dua kalimah syahadah bukan bermakna Muslimnya sudah sempurna, kesempurnaan Islamny bergantung kepada proses peningkatan ilmu & penghayatan Islam pada dirinya.<br /><br />KESIMPULAN<br /><br />Berdasarkan kepada perbincangan di atas kita dapat membuat beberapa kesimpulan berikut :<br /><br />1. Tidak ada kesepakatan dikalangan ulama tentang kriteria negara Islam kerana tidak terdapat nas Qat'i yang menentukannya.Justeru itu ulama berbeza pandangan dalam ijtihadnya dalam menentukan cirri-cirinya. Ada yang mencirikan bilangan majoriti Muslim sebagai penentu dan ada mencirikan perlaksanaan syari«ah sebagai penentu.<br /><br />2. Dalam pengalaman sejarah politik Islam tidak terdapat penentuan cara yang tetap dalam pemilihan pemimpin negara. Ada secara pemilihan terbuka dan ada secara warisan, tetapi semua bentuk pemimpin yang ditentukan itu diterima sah oleh ulamak yang membincangkan teori politik Islam.<br /><br />3. Ulamak juga tidak sepakat pendapat tentang syarat-syarat yang ditetapkan bagi ketua negara, kecuali beberapa syarat sahaja seperti keupayaan jasmani, kelayakan undang-undang, adil, kelayakan ilmu siasah, peperangan dan pentadbiran.<br /><br />4. Kerakyatan negara Islam sama ada Muslim atau bukan Muslim adalah sama disegi hak dan kewajipan kecuali perkara-perkara khusus yang dikecualikan. Mereka dikira sebahagian daripada umat Islam (ummatun min al-Muslimin).<br /><br />5. Malaysia adalah sebuah negara Islam berdasarkan kepada majoriti penduduk Islam, keamanan yang dinikmati, perlaksanaan undang-undang Islam sebahagian besarnya dan kepimpinan negara dikuasai oleh orang Melayu Muslim.<br /><br />PENUTUP<br /><br />Dengan penerimaan negara ini sebagai sebuah negara Islam menimbulkan beberapa implikasi dalam kehidupan Muslim.<br /><br />1. Muslim berhak menuntut pemerintah melaksanakan Islam sepenuhnya kerana itu adalah tanggungjawabnya sebagai pemerintah Islam.<br /><br />2. Muslim dapat hidup dengan harmoni dan dapat berusaha meningkatan produktiviti untuk kepentingan Islam, kerana terdapat sikap baik sangka antara satu dengan yang lain.<br /><br />3. Menimbulkan tanggungjawab yang lebih kepada Muslim untuk melaksanakan Islam di mana saja dia berada, kerana tidak dirasakan ada sesuatu yang bercanggah yang patut dielakkan dalam kehidupannya.<br /><br />4. Membina sikap positif dan membuat kritikan yang membina untuk kepentingan Islam, serta berpatisipasi dalam memenuhi tuntutan Islam di mana saja ada kekurangan.<br /><br />5. Setiap individu Muslim merasa berkewajipan untuk membangun negara dan umatnya dalam keupayaan masing-masing.<br /><br />Demikianlah sedikit penjelasan mengenai betapa pentingnya perpaduan dalam menentukan kesinambungan kepimpinan Islam dalam negara ini. Tanpa kesedaran yang tinggi dan usaha yang gigih dan teratur, masa depan kepimpinan Islam masih belum pasti. Ayuhlah bersama menjayakannya.<br /><br />Sumber: Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia http://www.islam.gov.myUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-48183420287087624592009-02-10T10:23:00.000+03:002009-02-10T10:24:53.159+03:00Is It Racist to Talk About Race?Is it racist to talk about race? Yes, it is. And for Muslims, not only are they racists, but also “fasiq” and “munafiq”. [See Raja Petra Kamaruddin's posting here]. As Muslims, they have to be fair and just and treat others equally. They cannot talk about themselves being Muslims, assert their identity or fight for their rights. As majority of Muslims in this country are Malays, they also cannot talk about themselves being Malays, assert their Malay identity or fight for Malay rights. If they do, not only are they racists, but also fasiq and munafiq. Perhaps, Benedict Anderson has to come up with a whole new book on this new form of religio-nationalism.<br /> <br />Going by this logic, then this country was built by the “fasiqun” and “munafiqun”. Our forefathers who talked about Malay interests, Chinese interests or Indian interests when they negotiated for independence back in 1957 were “fasiqun” and “munafiqun”. [Well, perhaps, non-Muslim Chinese and Indian leaders should not be capped under the same category of “fasiqun” and “munafiqun” I guess, unless there are equivalent concepts in Buddhism and Hinduism]. Not only that, the Malays who attended Malay College of Kuala Kangsar (MCKK) - an elite school specially built for the sons of Malay aristocrats and royalties - were also “fasiqun” and “munafiqun”. The list will go further down to include all Malays who received scholarships from the government, worked in the civil service or secured government contracts [Again, non-Malay/non-Muslim tycoons who received awards of multi-billion ringgit worth privatization projects should not be capped under the same category, unless there are equivalent concepts under their religions].<br /><br />Again, if there are equivalent concepts of “fasiqun” and “munafiqun” in Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Taoism and Sikhism - going by RPK's logic - the non-Muslim Chinese and Indians who attended Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools are also “fasiqun” and “munafiqun”. The same goes to non-Muslims who promote the rights and interests of their respective religious communities. The Chinese educationists as well as the members of Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) will be shocked to find that they are actually in the same category as those people in ABIM and PAS. The same goes to supporters of UMNO, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP and DAP. PKR supporters too, I believe, are not spared from this trap.<br /><br />Pheww … then we suddenly realize that almost everybody in this country is racist, fasiqun and munafiqun. So, let’s talk about race - and religion - anyway.<br /><br />I’m not trying to be sarcastic about this. My point is, it is not wrong to talk about race or to promote the interests of one’s ethnic (or religious) community as long as it remains within the confine of the law and is done with full respect and understanding of other communities’ concerns and needs.<br /><br />We also have to come to grasp with political realities of our Malaysian society. This society was built not so much on the sweat and blood of territorial fighters, but on the compromises achieved by different ethnic communities who believed that for them to share a home they called Malaya, they should - to certain extent - forego some of their “redemptive rights”.<br />Let's have a short journey to history.<br /><br />In the formative years of modern Malayan society, different ethnic communities who inhabited Malaya held different visions about their place in the new state that they would give their loyalty to. Achieving communal compromises was therefore not an easy task.<br />The Malays believed that they were the original inhabitanst of this land and they should therefore have the final say in determining the terms of the communal compromises. In a memorandum sent to the Cheeseman Consultative Committee on the Constitutional Proposals in 1947, the Malay Association of Ulu Terengganu said:<br /><br />Malaya is a Malay country which has been acknowledged to belong to the Malays from time immemorial. Therefore, (the position of Malay language) is extremely important and must be given priority …. If the Malay language is not given preference, the Malay race may be regarded as not being in existence and it means that this country does not belong to the Malays … the religion of Islam should be included in the proposals otherwise Islam may be endangered by Christianity and other religions<br /><br />The Ceylon Federation of Malaya said:<br /><br />The Ceylonese community came in large numbers to assist the development of Malaya … They had made Malaya their permanent home … and …with traditional loyalty and conservatism have given their entire lives exclusively to the service of Their Highnesses and the British administrators, while other races ventured into vocations of great gains, namely, planting, mining, trading and industry.<br /><br />As such, the federation argued, it would only be appropriate if the residential requirement for Malayan-born Ceylonese was relaxed, the interests of Ceylonese government servants and of those in other employment should not be jeopardized, and the Ceylonese community be represented in the Federal Legislative Council.<br /><br />In asking for generous citizenship requirements, the Indian Association of Terengganu claimed:<br /><br />Men’s memories are short and hence the tendency is to regard Indians as unwelcome intruders whose contribution to Malayan economy is nil and their only contribution is to the English language of the word “coolie” which has found a place in school text-books … the Malay community may be excused for short memories but the Raj cannot dispute the contributions of India and Indians to the extension of its influence in this part of the world from the founding of Singapore in the early part of the nineteenth century to the liberation of Malaya a few months ago.<br /><br />The Chinese also claimed that they too had contributed a lot to the country and therefore should be given more rights. Two Chinese leaders, HS Lee (later Tun) and Leong Yew Koh (later Tun), who sat on the Cheeseman Consultative Committee argued that the Chinese and Malay population were about equal, and by reason of their early association with Malaya, a great number of Chinese had as good claim to be regarded as the sons of the soil as the Malays.<br /> <br /><br />They also argued that as the Chinese had to pay about 70 percent of the total taxes in the country, they had borne a greater burden in the country’s economic development. Apart from that, they reminded that the Chinese had made a noble contribution toward the defence of Malaya and borne the brunt of the Japanese fury and terrorism during the Japanese occupation. This, they said, was the price for, as well as the symbol of, the Chinese community’s loyalty for the country. As such, the two Chinese leaders demanded that the number of Chinese representatives in the Federal Legislative Council should be about equal to the number of Malay representatives. All Malayan-born Chinese should also automatically acquire Federal citizenship.<br /> <br /><br />Even a multi-communal coalition of Malay left associations, radical-nationalist political parties, Chinese-based associations and trade unions called PUTERA-AMCJA, apart from demanding a united Malaya inclusive of Singapore, self-government through a fully elected central legislature for the whole of Malaya and equal citizenship rights also talked about race and religion. They demanded that the Malay Sultans should assume the position of fully sovereign and constitutional rulers; matters pertaining to Islam and Malay custom should be under the sole control of the Malays; and special attention should be given to the advancement of the Malays. [The last three demands were proposed by PUTERA, a coalition of Malay left associations].<br /> <br /> <br />By the time Malaya gained independence in 1957, a formula of communal compromise was agreed upon by the leaders of the Alliance parties. The main thrust of this formula was the preservation of special position of the Malays and the safeguarding of legitimate interests of other ethnic communities.<br /><br />While moving the constitutional proposals for the independent Malaya in the Federal Legislative Council in July 1957, Tunku Abdul Rahman spoke about the communal formula which laid the basis for the Federal Constitution:<br /><br />A formula was agreed upon by which it was decided that in considering the rights of the various peoples in this country no attempt must be made to reduce such rights which they have enjoyed in the past. As a result you find written into this Constitution rights of the various peoples they have enjoyed in the past and new rights, in fact, accorded to new people whom it was the intention to win over into the fold of the Malayan Nation. I refer to the Citizenship rights. It is a right which has given the Malays very grave concern and fear. Nevertheless because of their desire and anxiety to put Malaya on the pedestal as an Independent Nation, they are prepared to give that right to the new people.<br /><br />There was no smooth sailing for the formula though. A Chinese legislator remarked that the Constitution created two classes of citizens. He argued:<br /><br />The second class citizens may say that since we are only entitled to three-fourths of the special privileges, therefore, we in the like proportion will bear only the three-fourths of the responsibilities. I say that in time to come it will create discord and dissatisfaction … I think that all the Chinese and the non-Malays will agree that a greater share of the privileges must go to the Malays until they reach parity of wealth with the non-Malays … [but] if the provision is put in the permanent part of the Constitution it will tarnish the fair name of our country. The world would say that in this country you have one law for one race, another law for another race.<br /><br />An Indian legislator joined the fray. Arguing that no majority groups in any country in the world sought protection under the country’s Constitution, he warned:<br /><br />This special position of the Malays has acted to the detriment of the Malays – not the non-Malays. The non-Malays have improved because they are not given a special position … if the Malays had had competition, keen competition, from the other communities, they will be as much forward economically as the other races.<br /><br />Defending the Malay special privileges, a Malay legislator, Encik Ghafar Baba (later Tun) said:<br /><br />It should be noted that even the proposals by the Alliance have not satisfied the entire Malay masses of the Federation. There are sections among them who have claimed that as natives of this country they deserve things far greater than what had been decided by the Alliance, but to be fair to the other races the UMNO had to steer a middle course; … Sir, I am surprised to learn that some sections of the population are demanding for equal rights in addition to their demand for relaxation of the present citizenship law … to these people I would say that their action is nothing but merely directed to arouse the anger of the Malays … this (further) relaxation, if carried out, would reduce the Malays to a minority in their own country in a few years time.<br /><br />To this, Tan Siew Sin (later Tun) of MCA said:<br /><br />The Malays cannot be expected to give up what they already have in the same way that they do not expect the other communities to give up their existing rights. Far more important, however, is the indisputable fact that as a race the Malays are economically backward and well behind the other races in the field … It has also been asked why it has not been explicitly stated that this provision is only temporary. I would remind our critics that the Malays are a proud and sensitive race. They are also an intelligent race, and I know that they appreciate the significance and implications of this provision far better than most people realize. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that when the time comes, the Malays themselves will ask for its abolition, but this is a matter which we must obviously leave to them to decide.<br /><br />Lashing out at the critics of the communal compromise, V.T Sambathan (later Tun) of MIC said:<br /><br />We hear it spoken, Sir, of first class and second class citizenship. Is the first class citizen one who is badly provided with roads, has leaky roof over his head, cannot even get a doctor on a rainy-day even if his child is badly ill? Is that person, be he in the kampong or estate or new village, the first-class citizen or is it he who has a bungalow in the Federal Capital, one possibly in the Cameron Highlands and a couple more at a seaside resort who is the first class citizen, I ask … An unbalance exists and it exists for various reasons. It may be that colonial rule, with all its defects, its sins of omission, has rendered these things so. Freedom with its new outlook and an economy based for the purpose of helping the people will certainly solve most of these problems.<br /><br />Looking back in retrospection, all that had been said by our forefathers some fifty years ago are still not far off from us now. We are still listening to the same arguments, the same concerns, the same polemics. Racial (and religious) interests, alongside with the more "expressive" issues of human rights and freedoms, will continue to be one of the main planks of political discourse in multiracial and multireligious Malaysia. We can't terminate those concerns, but with a bit of wisdom we can surely manage it well beyond expectation. May be it is time for us, the children of this blessed land, to once again embrace the spirit of tolerance, compromise and mutual respect, as was examplified by our forefathers, so that we can move forward with vigour and resilience as one united nation.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />By: Marzuki Mohamad, Phd. (marzukimohamad.blogspot.com)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-46601118794240845242009-02-10T10:18:00.000+03:002009-02-10T10:20:42.541+03:00Islam Dalam Dimensi Perjuangan Umat Islam MelayuABIM telah melangsungkan Muktamar Sanawi Kali ke 37 pada bulan Ogos lepas. Pada tahun ini, perubahan yang telah berlaku di dalam Pilihanraya Umum ke 12 telah mencetuskan pelbagai isu yang menyinggung secara langsung nasib umat Melayu Islam di negara ini., lantas menyebabkan ABIM memilih tema Memperkasa Perjuangan Bangsa dan Agama dalam menyemarakkan sambutan muktamar pada tahun ini adalah . Ikuti temubual wartawan Risalah (WR) ABIM dengan Presiden ABIM, Tuan Haji Yusri Mohamad(THYM).<br /><br />WR: Bagaimanakah ABIM menempatkan dirinya dalam era pasca PRU 12 ini?<br /><br />THYM : Secara asasnya, tidaklah menjadi satu persoalan atau isu yang besar bagi ABIM untuk menempatkan dirinya dalam konteks pasca pilihan raya, sama ada PRU 12 atau mana-mana pilihan raya. Sebagai pertubuhan Islam non-partisan yang pendekatannya adalah untuk menggerakkan islah tetapi menerusi kaedah dakwah, pendidikan dan menimbulkan kesedaran maka datang dan perginya pilihan raya bukanlah sesuatu yang terlalu menentukan dalam kerangka pergerakan ABIM. Bagi ABIM sesiapa jua yang menang atau kalah di dalam kancah pilihan raya, ABIM harus tetap berperanan dan bergerak sesuai dengan idealisme perjuangannya. Jadi, prinsip non-partisan ini menjadi premis asasi bagi ABIM dalam berhadapan dengan situasi seumpama ini.<br /><br />Walau bagaimanapun, pada masa yang sama, ABIM tidaklah bersikap tidak endah atau tidak peka pada senario atau perubahan politik. Kita akui bahawa pilihan raya umum ke 12 yang lepas ini bukanlah pilihan raya biasa. Keputusan pilihan raya ke 12 ini adalah sangat berbeza dan berlainan daripada keputusan pilihan raya-pilihan raya yang diadakan sebelum ini. Sudah pasti keputusan pilihan raya yang agak berbeza pada kali ini perlu difahami,dianalisis dan dibaca setepat mungkin. Walau pun berprinsip non-partisan, ABIM sebagai sebuah gerakan yang bergerak di tengah-tengah masyarakat turut menangani isu-isu politik dan turut menyuarakan pandangan-pandangan dalam isu-isu yang berkaitan politik. Memandangkan persoalan kuasa dan politik mempunyai pengaruh yang sangat besar kepada masyarakat maka sudah tentulah kita perlu membuat bacaan setepat mungkin terhadap keputusan dan makna sebenar di sebalik keputusan pilihan raya ke 12 ini.<br /><br />ABIM melihat bahawa PRU 12 ini cuba diberi pelbagai tafsiran yang tidak semuanya betul atau tepat. Jadi ABIM turut perlu memainkan peranan untuk memberikan tafsiran yang dirasakan lebih tepat dan mewakili realiti sebenar yang melingkungi suasana PRU 12 ini.<br /><br /><br />WR: Boleh saudara jelaskan mengapa Muktamar Sanawi pada tahun ini mengangkat gagasan “ Memperkasa Perjuangan Agama dan Bangsa”?<br /><br />THYM: ABIM melihat bahawa di dalam kepelbagaian tafsiran yang wujud ini, terdapat beberapa tafsiran yang seakan-akan cuba untuk menggambarkan PRU 12 ini sebagai satu petanda atau isyarat bahawa telah berlaku suatu departure atau perubahan yang sangat mendasar dan menyeluruh. Cara berfikir masyarakat dilihat berubah sehinggalah melibatkan soal-soal asas-asas struktur dan kerangka masyarakat itu sendiri termasuk persoalan agama dan bangsa. Sehingga ke tahap seolah-olah formula kedudukan agama dan bangsa, khususnya di dalam Perlembagaan di negara ini sudah tidak relevan dan perlu dirombak. ABIM dapat merasakan faham-faham sebegini secara halus cuba diselitkan dalam tafsiran keputusan PRU 12 ini.<br /><br />Kita tidak menafikan bahawa memang ada perkara yang berubah, ada rasa ketidakpuasan hati terhadap beberapa aspek di dalam status quo, ada arus tuntutan agar perubahan dilakukan, dan kita turut bersetuju bahawa ada perkara yang perlu diubah. Tetapi perubahan tersebut ada batasnya. Tidak semuanya perlu dirombak dan sudah ketinggalan zaman. Maka dengan ini kita ingin pertegaskan dan pertahankan apa yang tidak wajar dibuang berkaitan idealisme dan aspirasi perjuangan agama dan bangsa. Bagi kita aspirasi dan idealisme yag meletakkan agama dan bangsa dalam kedudukan yang istimewa dalam kerangka negara bangsa Malaysia perlu dipertahan dan diperkasa. Inilah sebab mengapa kita memilih tema ini sebagai tema muktamar pada tahun ini.<br /><br />Kita nampak ada kecenderungan untuk cuba memperlekehkan persoalan-persoalan ini dan cuba untuk menyatakan bahawa semua ini bukan lagi sesuatu yang tidak lagi menjadi masalah, tak relevan dan non-issue. Sebagai contohnya, dalam isu kemuafakatan antara pemimpin politik Melayu-Islam, ada yang mencemuh syor mengadakan Muzakarah dengan begitu kasar sekali. Pada hemat saya, ini adalah sesuatu yang tidak wajar. Kita harus bezakan antara political manouvering oleh orang-orang politik dan soal semangat kebersamaan dan persaudaraan seagama dan sebangsa. Ini semua tidak salah atau bertentangan dengan Islam.<br /><br />Namun kita dapati soal ini sering mendapat tentangan dan serangan pihak tertentu seperti laman blog MalaysiaToday. Pemiliknya, Raja Petra Kamarudin sentiasa mengatakan atau cuba memberi gambaran bahawa apa sahaja cakap-cakap berkaitan Melayu atau bangsa adalah bertentangan dengan Islam. Ini adalah satu fahaman yang dangkal dan menyeleweng. Islam tidak menolak secara mutlak tentang isu-isu, persoalan dan sentimen yang berkaitan bangsa. Islam adalah agama fitrah, dan persoalan kaum dan bangsa itu adalah sesuatu yang bersifat fitrah kepada manusia. Maka adalah salah bagi sesiapa yang mengatakan bahawa apa-apa sentimen dan perjuangan tentang bangsa dan kaum adalah bercanggah dengan Islam.<br /><br />Islam datang meraikan fitrah manusiawi termasuk bangsa dan agama dengan cara memandu dan mengarah fitrah tersebut supaya berada di dalam kerangka yang tepat. Maka atas faktor inilah mengapa ABIM memilih gagasan ini sebagai tema muktamar kita. ABIM tetap dengan keyakinan bahawa ini adalah idealisme dan aspirasi yang diajar dan ditunjuk oleh agama serta membentuk sebahagian daripada warisan budaya kita sebagai umat Melayu. Inilah yang menjadi inti jati diri kita. Dengan longgarnya aspirasi perjuangan bangsa dan agama, maka kita sebenarnya akan kehilangan jati diri kita, sebagaimana disebutkan di dalam Quran.<br />“...Dan janganlah kamu menjadi seperti orang-orang yang melupakan Allah SWT, lalu Allah menjadikan mereka lupa kepada diri mereka sendiri...”<br /> ( Al-Hashr:19 )<br /><br />Jangan sampai akibat kita lupa pada Allah SWT dan agamaNya, akhirnya kita menjadi lupa pada diri sendiri. Allah SWT telah menyuruh agar kita memperjuangkan agama manakala Islam memberi ruang yang khusus dalam persoalan fitrah bangsa ini. Dalam konteks Malaysia, realitinya adalah umat melayu mempunyai perkaitan yang amat kuat dengan agama.<br /><br />Persoalan bangsa dan agama di Malaysia tidak boleh dipisah-pisahkan kerana beberapa sebab. Antaranya realiti demografi masyarakat. Realitinya, majoriti penduduk di Malaysia ini adalah yang beragama Islam dan majoriti ini semakin bertambah. Di kalangan penganut Islam pula, majoritinya terdiri daripada umat Melayu dan bumiputera. Ini membuktikan bahawa soal bangsa itu adalah sesuatu yang terikat dengan agama. Lemahnya bangsa akan bererti lemahlah agama.<br /><br /><br />WR: Bagaimanakah ABIM akan berperanan dalam menghadapi serangan-serangan pemikiran yang cuba menjauhkan umat Islam di negara ini daripada jati dirinya?<br /><br />THYM: Peranan ABIM yang utama adalah menjadi elemen yang sedar dalam masyarakat, the conscience of the Ummah. Dengan peranan ini, ABIM, bersama-sama dengan elemen–elemen yang selari dalam masyarakat harus berperanan mempertegas dan memperkasakan gagasan dan wawasan. Kita sedang berhadapan dengan sebuah gelanggang pertarungan fikrah. Fikrah yang diartikulasikan dengan lebih baik dan mampu meyakinkan, akan mengatasi yang lain dan akan lebih mencorak dan menentukan masa depan realiti politik, ekonomi dan masyarakat.<br /><br />ABIM dengan peranan tradisinya yang tergambar menerusi slogan ‘menegakkan kebenaran dan keadilan’, atau sebagai ‘jurubicara umat’, memang berkewajipan untuk menghadapi serangan fikiran yang cuba menghakis jati diri keIslaman dan keMelayuan masyarakat kita pada hari ini. Untuk tujuan ini, ABIM akan mengambil beberapa strategi. Antaranya, kita akan terus memperjelaskan dan menyebarluaskan perspektif kita terhadap isu yang berkaitan. ABIM juga akan memainkan peranan untuk menggerakkan rangkaian-rangkaian seluas mungkin untuk bersama-sama mendokong idealisme kita. Di samping itu, ABIM juga akan mendekati dan mengemukakan pandangan-pandangan yang kita yakini lebih absah kepada semua pihak yang berpengaruh dalam masyarakat, termasuklah kepimpinan tertinggi negara hinggalah ke peringkat akar umbi. Kita akan menggerakkan proses ini dalam pelbagai bentuk, sama ada menerusi seminar, bahan terbitan, kempen-kempen kesedaran termasuklah kunjungan hormat kepada pemimpin-pemimpin masyarakat daripada pelbagai kaum.<br /><br />Dalam konteks ini, saya ingin mempertegaskan bahawa ABIM bukanlah sebuah gerakan yang jumud dan hanya melihat ke dalam. Sebaliknya, kita tidak akan rasa takut dan kekok untuk berhadapan dan bertemu dengan kawan-kawan kita dari kalangan bukan Melayu dan Islam, baik daripada parti-parti politik dan NGO untuk menjelaskan mengapa kita mengambil sikap ini dan mengapa sikap ini lebih baik untuk negara ini dan semua pihak. Inilah antara strategi dan peranan yang akan kita mainkan.<br /><br /><br />WR: Bagaimanakah pula ABIM dapat melaksanakan agenda 3P di dalam realiti sosiopolitik dewasa ini, memandangkan rakyat lebih tertumpu kepada isu-isu seperti kenaikan harga minyak dan politik?<br /><br />THYM: Sebenarnya pendekatan 3P, yang merujuk kepada pendekatan dan strategi ABIM dalam menyusun atur gerak kerjanya sebagai sebuah organisasi, seandainya difahami dengan setepatnya, adalah sangat terkait rapat dan mencakupi isu-isu yang hangat dibicarakan oleh masyarakat, seperti kenaikan harga minyak dan isu-isu politik.<br /><br />Dalam agenda PENDIDIK misalnya, kita melihatnya dalam konsep yang luas. ABIM ingin menjana pendidikan agar dapat memperkasa insan dan individu dalam masyarakat sehingga akhirnya mereka mempunyai kekuatan untuk menghadapi apa jua isu. Masyarakat yang terdidik dengan baik pastinya tidak akan cepat hilang punca atau buntu dalam menghadapi apa jua persoalan, malah tidak mudah dilambung-lambung oleh badai pergolakan ekonomi dan politik.<br /><br />Dari sudut PEMBELA, walaupun dengan pendekatan non-partisan, kita tidak akan hanya membiarkan soal-soal penting yang melingkari kehidupan umat dan masyarakat kepada ahli-ahli politik sahaja. Seperti kata orang, ‘politics is too big to be left only to the politicians’, hal-hal politik dan ekonomi adalah persoalan-persoalan yang besar, penting, terlalu mustahak untuk diserahkan semata-mata kepada ahli politik. ABIM akan bersuara dalam mengemukakan pandangan berhubung isu-isu ini , namun dipandu semangat ‘ Al-Dinu al-Nasihah’, bukan untuk mencari populariti, atau membangkang semata-mata kerana sentimen, atau just for the sake of opposing. Semangat kita adalah nasihat dan tentunya nasihat boleh disampaikan menerusi pelbagai cara. Seandainya disampaikan dengan cara yang lunak yang ternyata lebih berkesan, maka itulah yang lebih baik. Pendekatan ini sejajar dengan akhlak Islamiy yang melarang kita meninggikan suara dalam keadaan yang tidak perlu. Namun, dalam keadaan-keadaan tertentu , seandainya hanya suara yang tinggi sahaja berkesan,maka itulah pendekatan yang kita akan ambil, insyaAllah.<br /><br /> Dalam konteks PRIHATIN, pendekatan ini menjadikan kita sebagai sebuah gerakan yang turut menyantuni masyarakat secara lansung dan membolehkan ABIM menangani soal kebajikan mereka dari dekat. <br /><br />WR: Apa pandangan saudara terhadap cadangan agar pemimpin-pemimpin dari parti politik Melayu, iaitu PAS dan UMNO untuk bermuzakarah?<br /><br />THYM: ABIM telah menyatakan pendirian kita dalam isu ini menerusi kenyataan rasmi kita. Kita berpandangan bahawa pemimpin-pemimpin politik Melayu perlu mempunyai saluran dan budaya komunikasi yang sihat dan progresif. Kita menerima hakikat bahawa dalam persaingan politik, sudah tentu akan ada kritik-mengkritik antara parti-parti politik. Ini adalah sesuatu yang lumrah dalam amalan politik kepartaian demokrasi moden. Tetapi pada masa yang sama ingin kita menyatakan bahawa semua itu ada masa, musim dan ketikanya.<br /><br />Adalah sesuatu yang sihat, progresif dan konstruktif, jika ada ketikanya, pemimpin-pemimpin politik Melayu tanpa mengira parti, dapat duduk bersama atas niat berbincang, bertukar pandangan, saling menasihati dan tegur-menegur dalam hal ehwal berkaitan agama dan bangsa. Selain daripada amalan menyerang dan mengkritik dari jauh, perlu ada ruang, masa dan kesempatan mereka duduk bersama bertukar-tukar pandangan secara berdepan, dan tidak semestinya dalam suluhan media. Malah ada baiknya sekiranya sesekala ianya bebas daripada suluhan pandangan umum. Mungkin ini boleh membantu mereka dapat bermuzakarah dan berbincang secara lebih bebas, tidak bersifat berdebat dan tidak dipengaruhi keinginan meraih undi atau ketakutan hilang undi. Muzakarah sebegini mungkin tidak dapat berlangsung dengan baik terlalu terdedah kepada umum. Muzakarah ini sekiranya dilihat dalam semangat ini adalah sangat positif dan wajar. Kita juga menegaskan bahawa muzakarah sebegini tidak semestinya didorong dan terikat dengan agenda penyatuan atau penggabungan.<br /><br />WR: Apakah amanat saudara buat sekelian warga ABIM?<br /><br />THYM: Saya ingin menyeru diri saya dan seluruh warga ABIM sempena dengan Muktamar Sanawi kali ini untuk bersama-sama menyiapkan diri kita dengan segala kekuatan, persiapan dan bekalan untuk terus mendokong dan memperkasa aspirasi perjuangan ini. Umat dan bangsa sentiasa mengharapkan ABIM yang dapat berperanan dengan segar, efektif dan berkesan. Kita harus melihat ini sebagai sebuah seruan yang suci, a higher call, , satu tugas yang mulia dan ruang untuk membuktikan diri kita kepada Allah Subhanahu wata’ala, sebagai hambaNya yang patuh dan setia, yang tahu harga dirinya , dengan bersedia memikul risalah dan amanah yang ditugaskan. Inilah lambang istiqamah dan kesetiaan kita terhadap apa yang sudah kita bina dan gerakkan selama ini. Inilah perjuangan kita dan sepatutnyalah kita terus setia dengan perjuangan ini dalam keadaan terdapat usaha-usaha untuk merubah dan mencabar aspirasi-aspirasi asas perjuangan ini. Muktamar Sanawi pada tahun ini, dengan tema yang kita pilih, sangat tepat dengan situasi dan keadaannya.Ini adalah satu ruang keemasan untuk kita gunakan sebagai platform untuk bermuhasabah, memugar idelisme, merapatkan saf, memperkukuh rangkaian dalam memastikan kejayaan misi da’wah di negara kita dan umat sejagat, dengan izin dan tawfiq Ilahi.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-60054164504294012462009-02-10T10:16:00.001+03:002009-02-10T10:18:55.119+03:00Melahirkan Ulama Berilmu dan Berwibawa Dalam Pembangunan Negara Masa KiniPerkataan ulamak mempunyai erti yang amat besar bersama besarnya fungsi dan peranan yang dimainkan oleh mereka. Pada hari ini, perkataan ini menjadi suatu pemakaian yang murah dan mudah digunakan. Ramai yang jauh dari mencapai tahap minimun piawaian dari segi keilmuan mahupun sahsiah dinobatkan sebagai ulamak sedang keilmuan masih cetek. Apakah sekadar bercakap ana dan anta atau memasuki pertubuhan bernama ulama atau sekadar dapat memberi ceramah yang berbentuk retorika dapat digelar sebagi ulamak. Sedangkan mereka belum lagi menekuni ilmu-ilmu Islam secara mendalam.<br /><br />Muhammad al-Ghazali mengkritik keras terhadap golongan yang mengakui diri mereka sebagai ulama sedangkan mereka baru sahaja belajar Islam semalam dan pada hari ini ingin mengeluarkan fatwa. Akibatnya masyarakat akan menjadi keliru. Mereka menganggap dirinya menjadi jaguh kepada perjuangan Islam tetapi perbuatan tersebut bukan melambang kesuciaan agama Islam sebenarnya.Malah kenyataan-kenyataan mereka menyebabkan Islam dipandang serong.<br /><br /> <br />Oleh itu, pentakrifan ulama membawa pengertian keilmuan dan orang yang berilmu dalam pelbagai demensi yang lebih bersifat universal. Muhammad Kamil Abd Majid dari Universiti Malaya menyebutkan bahawa ulama tidaklah semestinya khusus kepada ilmuan bidang agama semata-mata seperti banyak orang memahaminya sekarang, tetapi lebih umum meliputi sesiapa sahaja yang mempunyai kualiti ilmu pengetahuan, pembelajaran dan sains dengan penguasaan yang lebih mendalam terhadap bidang-bidang ilmu dan jujur dalam mencari kebenaran. Ertinya juga ulama adalah pemilik kaedah integrasi iman kepada Allah, ilmu yang bermanfaat, amal yang soleh dan akhlak yang mulia, yang kesemuanya didasarkan kepada tauhid di dalam mempelajari, mencari, mengajar dan mengembangkan ilmu pengetahuan. Takrif ini akan lebih sesuai bagi ulama dalam menyahut cabaran abad 21. Istilah ulama tidak seharusnya disempitkan kepada mereka yang hanya tahu akan hukum keagamaan semata-mata. Kenyataan ini disokong oleh ayat al-Quran.<br /><br />Firman Allah yang bermaksud : “ Dan demikian pula di antara manusia dan binatang-binatang yang melata serta binatang-binatang ternak, ada yang berlain-lain jenis dan warnanya. Sebenarnya yang menaruh bimbang dan takut (melanggar perintah) Allah dari kalngan hamba-hambaNya hanyalah orang-orang yang berilmu. Sesungguhnya Allah Maha Kuasa lagi Maha Pengampun.” (Faatir, ayat 28)<br /><br />Ayat ini menjelaskan sifat orang yang berilmu ialah rasa takut dan takwa kepada Allah yang merupakan sifat utama golongan ini. Pendahuluan ayat ini menjelaskan fenomena-fenomena hujan dan langit, buah-buhan dan bumi, gunung-ganang dan lurah yang berbagai-bagai warna. Demikianlah pula makhluk manusia, alam haiwan sama ada melata atau yang diternak. Fenomena tersebut dapat difahami oleh orang yang berilmu dalam pelbagai disiplin ilmu dan bukan sekadar dalam lingkungan para ulama yang menguasai ilmu-ilmu agama. Oleh itu, Sayyid Qutb berpandangan bahawa ulama adalah mereka yang memerhati alam yang aneh dan membawa mengenal Allah sebagai makrifat yang hakiki. Mereka mengenal akan kesan-kesan penciptaan Tuhan, takut akan kesan kekuasaan Allah. Malah merasai hakikat keagungan dengan melihat hakikat penciptaan. Di situ timbul rasa takut dan takwa malah mengabdikan sepenuhnya kepada Allah.<br /><br />Saidina Ali menjelaskan sifat orang yang berilmu atau orang yang sebenarnya alim dengan katanya : “ orang yang tidak putus asa dan tidak menjadikan orang lain putus asa dari rahmat allah. Tidak memberi peluang untuk maksiat dilakukan. Tidak cuai dari mengingatkan manusia kepada azab Allah. Mengajak manusia mengasihi dan melaksanakan perintah al-Quran. Menjelaskan kepada orang bahawa beramal tanpa ilmu tidak ada kebaikan.”<br /><br />Imam al-Ghazali dalam Ihya Ulumiddin menjelaskan sifat-sifat terpenting para ulama iaitu bahawa para ulama sebenarnya tidak mencari dunia dengan ilmu agamanya, perbuatannya sepakat dengan percakapannya, bertekun menjayakan ilmu yang mendatangkan faedah serta mengelakkan diri persoalan-persoalan yang sia-sia iaitu terlibat dalam banyak perkara khilaf dan berdebat didalamnya. Imam al-Ghazali mengibaratkan orang yang membelakangi ilmu-ilmu amaliah dan gemar kepada ilmu yang banyak khilaf didalamnya seperti seorang yang sakit teruk kerana berbagai jenis penyakitnya pula tetapi bila ditemuinya doktor maka ia sibuk dengan persoalan-persoalan berkenaan ubat-ubat dan khasiat-khasiat ubat yang pelik-pelik tanpa berusaha untuk mengubatkan penyakit dirinya. Orang berilmu juga sederhana dalam hidupnya, tidak cepat mengeluarkan hukum bahkan selalu menahan diri seboleh-bolehnya. Ibn Mas’ud menyebutkan bahawa orang yang berfatwa tentang segala-galanya yang ditanya adalah orang gila. Ulama yang unggul juga hati dan hidup mereka dipenuhi dengan suasana takwa dan takut kepada Allah. Bila dilihat wajah mereka manusia teringat kepada Allah. Kehebatan lahirnya mencerminkan kehebatan hatinya yang sentiasa diselubungi dengan rasa takwa kepada Allah. Sebab itu pada ulama yang utama didapati sifat-sifat ketenangan, merendah diri dan tidak bongkak takbur. Cakap kosong, senda gurau berlebihan, ketawa berdekah-dekah serta gerak geri yang keji atau hina atau kesombongan dan kelalaian tidak didapati pada diri ulama yang utama. Pernyataan-pernyataan di atas menunjukkan bahawa orang yang memiliki sifat-sifat demikian adalah ulama yang sejati dan berwibawa. Ada dua cirri utama kejiwaan yang mutlak dimiliki seseorang yang menjadi pewaris nabi, pertama rasa takutnya yang hanya kepada Allah melebihi rasa takut yang dimiliki kaumnya. Kedua, keluhuran akhlak ulama kepada makhluk Allah melebihi siapapun di antara kaumnya. Bagi ulama setiap itu disetai dengan perasaan takut kepada Allah. Rasa takut ini membuatkan ketaatan para ulama, kecintaannya dan kegigihannya dalam menjalankan perintah Allah memperjuangkan agamaNya melebihi orang lain.<br /><br />Tugas utama para nabi adalah menyempurnakan akhlak. Bagaimana seorang ulama boleh menjalankan tugas ini jika mereka sendiri tidak sempurna akhlaknya. Di sini persoalan moral dan akhlak menjadi suatu yang utama. Bagi seorang ulama, penguasaan ilmu dan akhlak tidak boleh dipisahkan. Adalah menjadi musibah besar jika umat Islam mengangkat seseorang sebagai ulama sedangkan moral dan akhlaknya masih dipersoalkan. Kriteria utama para ulama adalah moralnya kerana kedudukannya sebagai suluh dan obor umat. Bangsa Yahudi dan Nasrani menolak kenabian Muhammad s.a.w. bukan kerana kebodohan mereka tetapi kerana kejahatan para ahli kitab yang menyembunyikan kebenaran untuk memperolehi sedikit kesenangan dunia.<br /><br />Imam Malik pernah ditanya tentang seorang alim atau ulama. Ia menjawab : “ seorang yang alim tidak dikatakan alim sampai ia dapat mengamalkan secara khusus untuk dirinya suatu amalan yang diwajibkan kepada manusia dan ia tidak memberi fatwa kepada orang lain tentang amalannya itu yang sekiranya ditinggalkan tidak berdosa.”<br /><br />Sesetengah dari kita mengagungkan ulama silam sehingga lupa peranan yang perlu dilakukan olehnya terhadap generasi kini. Ulama silam telah menunaikan amanah ilmu dengan baik sekali untuk zaman mereka. Pada zaman kini kita memerlukan ilmuwan yang dapat memenuhi tuntutan umat semasa. Terdapat ulama yang menyibukkan dalam isu-isu yang remeh dan lupa isu utama yang perlu diberi perhatian. Akibatnya umat Islam dalam keadaan lemah dan mundur. Mereka hanya cukup berpuas hati dengan apa yang ada dan tidak melibatkan diri dengan giat bagi merangka masa depan ummah yang lebih cemerlang. Peristiwa-peristiwa yang berlaku dalam dunia Islam sekarang terutama pasca 11 September memerlukan peranan ilmuwan Islam yang padu dan bertindak secara rasional dan berhati-hati. Ulama perlu peka terhadap Islam sebagai satu tamadun sejagat yang mementingkan soal keadilan, perikemanusiaan dan keinsanan sebagai nilai-nilai utama tamadun Islam. Ulama juga perlu menyegarkan tentang pentingnya ilmu, kepimpinan dan penguasaan bidang sains dan teknologi. Di samping itu, para ulama perlu melihat isu-isu kini dengan pandangan yang lebih luas.<br /><br />Salah faham terhadap beberapa isu seperti poligami dan kedudukan wanita adalah disebabkan pandangan-pandangan oleh ulama tradisi yang sempit dan sikap liberal golongan wanita yang ingin memperjuangkan haknya. Sedangkan Islam tidak bertanggungjawab terhadap tafsiran-tafsiran yang disalahertikan oleh mereka.Oleh itu, perlunya peranan golongan ketiga atau institusi ulama berwibawa yang dapat menjalin kedua-dua pihak untuk berdialog dan bersemuka demi keutuhan ummah. Sikap keangkuhan tidak mahu berdialog bukan sifat mukmin sejati apatah lagi dari kalangan para ulama dan sarjana Islam. Sejarah telah membuktikan ulama juga pernah dikritik. Al-Maududi menerima dengan hati terbuka kritikan yang dilakukan oleh Abu Hassan al-Nadwi terhadap beberapa penulisannya.Beliau tidak pun melahirkan rasa tidak senang dengan kritikan ini seperti dirasai pengikutnya. Ini bereti ulama boleh dikritik. Setengah umat Islam beranggapan mengkritik ulama adalah sama dengan mengkritik Islam. Perkara itu tidak benar. Demikian juga suatu kesalahan besar yang dilakukan oleh aliran pendidikan Barat yang apabila mengkritik ulama, mereka hilang panduan sehingga mengkritik Islam secara langsung. Oleh itu, setiap orang perlu memahami Islam dari sumber berautoriti supaya kefahamannya tidak terpesong. Hassan al-banna menegaskan pandangan seseorang boleh diterima dan ditolak kecuali kata-kata Rasulullah s.a.w.<br /><br />Ulama masa kini perlu melbatkan diri dalam pembangunan masyarakat dan negara dan ia seharusnya lebih hebat daripada generasi ulama terdahulu kerana keadaan sekarang leih mencabar dan keperluan umat terhadap penyelesaian secar Islam amat mendesak. Oleh itu, mereka perlu melibatkan diri secara lansung dengan masyarakat untuk membangun pemikiran, kerohanian dan pembangunan fizikal.<br /><br />Menurut Dr. Abdul Halim El-Muhammady, para ulama masa kini perlu melibatkan diri dalam kegiatan-kegiatan seperti berikut :<br /><br />1) Menyambung tradisi ilmu yang diasaskan oleh ulama tradisional melalui pengajaran dan penulisan, agar kesinambungan ilmu berterusan berlaku, terutamanya ilmu-ilmu asas keislamanan. Kesinambungan ilmu di segi penulisan telah terputus sejak seratus tahun yang lalu selepas meninggalnya ulama-ulama besar seperti al-raniri, Daud al-fatani, Abdul samad al-Falambani dan lain-lain. Penulisan ilmu yang dimaksudkan di sini ialah penulisan yang lengkap dan bercorak ilmiah dalam bidang-bidang tertentu.<br /><br />2) Mereka perlu kepada perubahan dalam pengolahan ilmu dan pendekatannya, agar mudah difahami oleh generasi masa kini yang telah terbentuk pemikiran mereka dari disiplin ilmu yang berbagai dan suasana masyarakat yang berbeza. Teerutamanya ilmu-ilmu asas keislaman seperti pengajian al-quran, Sunnah, Fiqh dan sebagainya.<br /><br />3) Mereka perlu memahami dan mengolah ilmu-ilmu yang ada kaitannya dengan perkembangan masyarakat kini seperti bidang undang-undang, ekonomi, kemasyarakatan, sains dan lain-lain, agar ilmu-ilmu ini dapat dimanfaatkan dan berkembang dalam masyarakat mengikut perspektif Islam dan mampu untuk memberi penyelesaian kepada permasalahan kehidupan masayakat Islam masa kini.<br /><br />4) Ulama perlu terlibat secara langsung dalam pembangunan masyarakat di segi keilmuan dan kegiatan-kegiatan pembangunan lainnya di seluruh peringkat masyarakat dan sepatutnya mereka menjadi penggerak dan yang memberi sumbangan kepada inspirasi pembangunan masyarakat.<br /><br />5) Mereka seharusnya melibatkan diri dalam memberi bimbangan kerohanian yang jelas untuk membina kekuatan kejiwaan kepada masyarakat, agar mereka tidak terpesung daripada pengaruh-pengaruh ajaran kebatinan dan ajaran-ajaran kerohanian yang boleh menyesatkan.<br /><br />6) Mereka perlu melibatkan diri dalam memberi kesedaran kepada masyarakat dalam seluruh perinmgkat, melalui saluran yang rasmi dan yang bukan rasmi berasaskan ilmu dan penyelesaian pratikal untuk masyarakat.<br /><br />7) Mereka perlu berusaha memupuk kemesraan hidup di kalangan masyarakat berasaskan Islam dan menghidupkan kembali tradisi perhubungan masyarakat yang telah diasaskan oleh ulama tradisional berdasarkan konsep ukhuwwah,kejiranan dan konsep jamaah supaya konsep-konsep ini dapat meredakan sentimen kelompok yang sedang berkembang dalam masyarakat.<br /><br />8) Mereka hendaklah menjadi jambatan untuk perhubungan seluruh kelompok masyarakat untuk menjadi tempat rujukan dan contoh penghayatan pemikiran dan nilai-nilai yang positif untuk pembangunan dan kesatuan masyarakat, sebagaimana yang pernah ditunjukkan oleh Rasulullah s.a.w. para sahabat dan ulama yang silam.<br /><br />9) Mereka perlu melibatkan diri dalam kegiatan-kegiatan organisasi dakwah di samping kegiatan-kegiatan rasmi lainnya, agar dapat dipupuk semangat kerja secara kelompok dan berorganisasi untuk memberi kekuatan kepada kerja-kerja untuk peningkatan dakwah Islam.<br /><br />10) Menubuhkan institusi-institusi pendidikan yang bergiat untuk memupuk pendidikan Islam dan keilmuan Islam secara mendalam yang mencakup bidang-bidang ilmu asas keislaman, ilmu pelengkap dan ilmu-ilmu semasa yang lain untuk keperluan pembangunan umat.<br /><br />Untuk membolehkan para ulama memainkan peranan besar dalam yang berkeasn dalam pembangunan negara, mereka haruslah mempunyai kualiti-kualiti seperti berikut :<br /><br />a. pengetahuan yang mendalam bukan sahaja dalam bidang-bidang yang berkaiatan denagn ilmu-ilmu agama seperti fiqh, usul fiqh, tafsir, hadis dan pandangan-pandangan pelbagai mazhab yang muktabar tetapi juga memahami serta menguasai pelbagai cabang ilmu yang lain seperti sains kemasyarakatan, ilmu ekonomi dan lain-lain.<br /><br />b. Memahami cirri-ciri peradaban Barat terutama dari segi ideologi dan system ekonomi sama ada kapitalisme, sosialisme, komunisme, dan globalisasi. Para ulama juga perlu memahami perbandingan agama (muqarah al-adyan) supaya ia dapat menjelaskan lagi keindahan agama Islam.<br /><br />c. Memahami secara mendalam tradisi dan pemikiran tamadun besar dunia terutama tamadun cina dan India. Ini adalah perlu bukan sahaja kerana banyak yang boleh kita pelajari daripada tradisi dan ahli fikir dari kedua-dua tamadun yang besar ini tetapi juga kerana dengan ini kita akan dapat mengetahui warisan peradaban kaum-kaum yang terbesar di negara ini.<br /><br />d. Mempunyai kebijaksanaan atau hikmah yang tinggi dalam mengutarakan pandangan terhadap perubahan yang hendak dibawa supaya pandangan-pandangan ini dapat dirterima bukan sahaj oleh orang Islam tetapi juga orang-orang bukan Islam.<br /><br />Oleh itu, ulama merupakan satu golongan terpenting dalam sejarah pembangunan masyarakat manusia sama ada dari segi kerohanian atau pun kebendaan. Mereka adalah penggerak kepada kesedaran umat dan pengisi kepada pembangunan pemikiran dan budaya. Kesejahteraan dan kemakmuran masyarakat Islam akan terjamin dan terserlah apabila wujud persefahaman antara ulama dan penguasa dalam membangunkan umat. Pertembungan antara kedua-dua pihak akan mengakibatkan kekacauan yang besar dalam masyarakat. Oleh itu, perkara ini sedaya upaya harus dielakkan. Adalah diharapkan kerjasama antara ulama dan penguasa dapat mempercepatkan lagi proses pembangunan masyarakat manusia terutama dari segi akhlak dan kerohanian.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-68918038349604585262009-02-10T10:12:00.000+03:002009-02-10T10:13:43.505+03:00Mengenali ulama sebenar di MalaysiaUtusan Malaysia, 03/02/2003, Ruangan Bicara Agama<br /><br />SECARA umum takrif ulama di kalangan umat Islam di Malaysia ialah orang yang ahli dalam pengetahuan agama. Maka atas takrif yang begitu umum, masyarakat dengan secara mudah menempelkan label ulama kepada kalangan yang pada kaca mata mereka adalah ahli dalam pengetahuan agama.<br /><br />Malah ada persatuan yang dianggotai oleh orang-orang yang mengiktiraf diri mereka ulama. Maka pernah suatu ketika dulu dipersoalkan apakah kriteria untuk melayakkan diri menjadi ahli pertubuhan tersebut? Kita tahu kriteria untuk menjadi doktor atau peguam adalah lebih jelas kerana ada sistem dan institusi penauliahan.<br /><br />Sebaliknya kita di Malaysia dengan mudah menggelar seseorang ulama semata-mata kerana mereka memiliki ijazah dalam pengajian agama dan pandai bercakap. Kelulusan daripada universiti tertentu turut memudahkan lagi mereka digelar ulama.<br /><br />Sebilangan masyarakat pula meletakkan syarat bahawa ulama mestilah berpakaian tertentu - misalnya serban, jubah dan janggut.<br /><br />Bagi Mualim, untuk menggelarkan seseorang itu ulama bukanlah perkara mudah. Lebih mudah untuk mengenali peguam, doktor atau jurutera daripada mengenali ulama.<br /><br />Seseorang sepatutnya layak digelar ulama di atas penerimaan seluruh atau majoriti masyarakat Islam sesuatu negara, rantau atau dunia Islam. Misalnya Allahyarham Hamka. Pada hemat Mualim tidak ada sesiapa pun di rantau Islam Nusantara (Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Singapura dan Thailand) yang boleh menafikan beliau seorang ulama.<br /><br />Apakah kriteria sebenar seorang ulama? Bagi Mualim seseorang itu mestilah menampilkan kekuatan ilmu yang bukan sekadar bersandarkan kitab-kitab yang pernah dibacanya (termasuk Quran dan hadis), tetapi dia juga mestilah memperoleh taufik-hidayat yang merupakan kurnia istimewa dari Allah.<br /><br />Jika sekadar bersandarkan ilmu yang dipelajari dari kitab, maka Mualim lebih cenderung untuk menggelar seseorang yang berilmu itu sebagai `ahli kitab.' Tiada bezanya mereka dengan ahli-ahli kitab yang disebut dalam Quran sebagai merujuk kepada pendita-pendita Yahudi dan Nasrani di zaman Rasulullah s.a.w.<br /><br />Seseorang ulama yang tulen sebenarnya dipilih oleh Allah untuk `mewarisi nabi.' Dia juga mewarisi al-Quran dengan ilmu yang bersandarkan taufik-hidayat yang dikurniakan kepadanya oleh Yang Maha Mengetahui Lagi Bijaksana. Bertuah kita jika berguru dengan mereka ini.<br /><br />Jika kita melihat Hamka sebagai ulama, kita dapati bukan sahaja ceramahnya yang memukau kita, malah hasil tulisannya juga menjadi karya agung, sama ada tafsir al-Qurannya, novel, buku agama yang meliputi ilmu tasauf dan fikh serta falsafah.<br /><br />Hamka juga boleh diterima oleh sesiapa sahaja kerana beliau tidak mengaitkan dirinya dengan mana-mana golongan sehingga boleh menyebabkan beliau dicurigai oleh mana-mana pihak yang bermusuhan.<br /><br />Beliau mempamerkan akhlak yang tidak boleh dipertikaikan dari apa jua sudut, sama ada percakapan, tulisan dan perbuatannya. Pada dirinya kita akan mendapati tiada percanggahan dengan firman Allah:<br /><br />``Sesungguhnya yang takut kepada Allah di antara hamba-hamba-Nya hanyalah ulama. Sesungguhnya Allah Maha Perkasa Lagi Maha Pengampun.'' - 35 (Faathir): 28<br /><br />Di Malaysia sekarang, kita boleh melihat dan mendengar dengan jelas betapa orang-orang yang dilabel ulama melakukan perkara yang terang-terang bertentangan dengan sifat-sifat orang yang takut kepada Allah, sama ada dari segi tutur kata atau perbuatan.<br /><br />Mualim percaya mereka ini tidak mendapat taufik dan hidayat daripada Allah. Mereka ini dianggap ulama setelah menonjolkan diri sebagai ulama hanya dengan berdasarkan ilmu daripada kitab.<br /><br />Jika kita meneliti diri mereka, akan terserlah sifat riak dan takbur kerana mereka merasakan diri mereka lebih berilmu daripada orang lain. Apakah orang yang takutkan Allah bersifat riak dan takbur?<br /><br />Mereka ini tidak faham bahawa Allah mengajar Nabi Muhammad yang buta huruf bukan dengan cara atau kaedah yang digunakan oleh ahli-ahli kitab. Jika Allah hendak memilih pewaris nabi, sudah tentulah bukan orang yang riak dan takbur. Allah boleh memberikan kepada sesiapa sahaja kerana Dia Maha Berkuasa dan Maha Mengetahui.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-11579789687271167112009-02-10T09:54:00.000+03:002009-02-10T09:56:07.937+03:00BAHAYA:DAKWAH SYIAH MENYELINAP DALAM DIARI ISLAM 2009‘SUNGGUH LICIK DAN TELITI’<br /><br />Oleh: Yussamir Yusof<br />23 Januari 2009 - 12.47 malam, Negeri Sembilan<br /><br />Saya sudah lama bercadang untuk membeli diari sebagai alat bantu ‘pengingat’ atau alat bantu ‘pencatat’ semua aktiviti saya, selain PDA yang saya ada sekarang ini. Pada mulanya saya mencari diari yang sesuai di MPH Alamanda. Tetapi disebabkan harga diari-diari di situ agak mahal, saya melupakan hasrat itu sementara mencari di tempat lain.<br /><br />Alhamdulilah, semasa pulang ke Seremban, saya sempat singgah di kedai buku Popular untuk membeli sebuah diari dan sebuah buku. Diari Islam memikat hati saya untuk membelinya, dan sebuah buku kewangan dari Ustaz Zaharuddin saya miliki. Berbaloi membeli sesuatu yang dapat mendatangkan manfaat kepada diri kita, lebih-lebih lagi ilmu yang diperolehi boleh dikongsi bersama.<br /><br />Di rumah, semasa saya sedang menulis dan membelek-belek diari yang baru dibeli, saya agak terkejut apabila membaca di halaman yang menceritakan tentang Al-Fatihah sebagai Umul Kitab. Bukan terkejut tentang al-fatihah sebagai umul kitab, tetapi terkejut dalam penerangan-penerangan disitu terdapat unsur Syiah yang cuba diserapkan. Sangat jelas, penyebaran Akidah Syiah Imam Dua Belas ditulis dan dicoretkan di dalam diari itu secara senyap dan licik.<br /><br />DUA BELAS IMAM<br /><br />Sesiapa yang memiliki diari Islam tersebut, cuba lihat di bahagian nama-nama Imam sebanyak 12 yang ditulis di situ. Bermula dengan Imam Ali bin Abi Thalib sehingga Imam Abu Qasim Muhammad bin al-Hassan yang dikenali sebagai Imam Mahdi di kalangan Syiah.<br /><br />1 ‘Ali bin Abi Talib r.a. (23 sebelum Hijrah-40H). Mereka memangilnya sebagai ‘al-Murtada.<br />2 Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali r.ahuma. (2H-50H). Mereka menggelarnya al-Mujtaba.<br />3 Al-Husain bin ‘Ali r.ahuma (3H-61H). Mereka menggelarnya al-Syahid atau juga Sayyid al-Syuhada (penghulu para syuhada.<br />4 ‘Ali Zain al-‘Abidin bin al-Husain (38H-95H). Dipanggil al-Sajjad.<br />5 Muhammad bin ‘Ali (57H-114H). Dipanggil al-Baqir.<br />6 Ja’far bin Muhammad (83H-148H). Dipanggil al-Sadiq..<br />7 Musa bin Ja’far (128H-183H). Dipanggil al-Kazim.<br />8 ‘Ali bin Musa (148H-203H). Dipanggil al-Rida.<br />9 Muhammad bin ‘Ali (195H-220H). Dipanggil al-Jawwad.<br />10 ‘Ali bin Muhammad (212H-254H). Dipanggil al-Hadi. .<br />11 Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali, (332H-360H). Dipanggil al-‘Askari..<br />12 Muhammad ibn al-Hasan48 (256H- ) Mereka menganggapnya sebagai alMahdi atau mereka mereka memanggil juga al-Mahdi al-Qaim bi al-Hujjah. Dia sebenarnya meninggal semasa kecil ketika berumur 5 tahun pada tahun 261H, namun mereka menganggap hilang bersembunyi dan akan muncul semula sebagai al-Mahdi yang dijanjikan.<br /><br />Pasti ada menyoal saya kembali, apa guna dan apa faedahnya saya membongkar misi dakwah syiah yang terdapat dalam diari tersebut. Lagi-lagi, saya sendiri sudah menyatakan bahawa saya tidak lagi berminat sangat dalam hal-hal hukum untuk ditulis dalam blog ini. Tetapi atas kesedaran dan tanggungjawab saya untuk menjelaskan apa yang saya dapat lihat dan perasan dalam diari tersebut. Saya merasakan perkara ini harus diceritakan dan diberitahu<br />.<br />Apa yang dapat saya katakan kepada anda semua, bahawa dakwah Syiah adalah sesuatu yang serius, BERBAHAYA dan perlu dipandang berat oleh semua pihak. “Tapi bukan semua Syiah sesat.” Ya Memang benar, bukan semua Syiah sesat dan artikel ini juga bukan bermotifkan untuk menyesatkan sesiapa. Tetapi sebagai satu alat untuk memberi kesedaran dan memberi peringatan tetang betapa liciknya dakwah syiah dalam kehidupan seharian kita.<br /><br />Sebelum saya bercerita panjang mengapa kita menolak Syiah Rafidah atau Imam Dua Belas, dan bagaimana kita mahu membendung perkara ini dari menyelinap dalam bahan bacaan kita. Saya mahu memberikan sedikit penjelasan ringkas, siapa itu Syiah dan Syiah kategori mana yang kita tolak.<br /><br />Gelaran Syiah lazimnya ditujukan kepada setiap orang yang setia (wala’) kepada ‘Ali bin Abi Thalib dan Ahl al-Baitnya radhiallahu ‘anhum, sehingga ia menjadi nama gelaran yang khusus bagi mereka. (al-Fairuzabadi – al-Qamus al-Muhith, ms. 735, seperti yang dikemukakan oleh Hafiz Firdaus dalam bukunya ‘Jawapan Ahlu Sunnah kepada Syiah Rafidhah dalam persoalan Khalifah’)<br /><br />Namun begitu, Syiah yang benar-benar kita (Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamaah) tolak ialah Syiah Rafidah. Iaitu golongan yang menolak kekhalifahan dan keutamaan Abu Bakar, ‘Umar dan ‘Utsman. Mereka juga menolak para imam daripada keturunan Ahl al-Bait Rasulullah kerana mereka (para imam daripada keturunan Ahlu Bait) juga mengiktiraf kekhalifahan Abu Bakar, ‘Umar dan ‘Utsman serta mengutamakan mereka bertiga di atas ‘Ali bin Abi Thalib.<br /><br /><br />MENGAPA KITA MENOLAK SYIAH RAFIDHAH DAN IMAM DUA BELAS<br /><br />Mengapa kita menolak Syiaf Rafidhah? Jawapannya, kerana Saidina Ali sendiri menolak mereka dan Nabi Muhammad juga telah mengingatkan kita tentang golongan ini. Perkara ini dijelaskan oleh Rasulullah dalam sebuah hadith yang direkodkan oleh Imam Ahmad dari Saidina Ali bin Abi Thalib, “Akan muncul di umatku di akhir zaman nanti satu kaum yang bernama Rafidhah, mereka menolak Islam.”<br /><br />Bukan itu sahaja, mereka sendiri telah mengaku bahawa mereka menolak untuk beriman kepada Allah dan Rasul. Sepertimana yang dikatakan sendiri oleh ulama mereka iaitu, Nikmatullahi al-Jazairi dalam bukunya al-Anwar Nukmaniyah, “Sesungguhnya kami tidak akan pernah sepakat dengan mereka (Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamaah) tentang Allah, Nabi dan Imam. Disebabkan mereka mengatakan: “Tuhan kami adalah yang Nabinya Muhammad dan khalifah setelahnya Abu Bakar, dan kami Rafidhah tidak beriman pada tuhan itu dan Nabi yang tadi, kerana Rabb yang Nabinya Muhammad dan Khalifah setelahnya adalah Abu Bakar bukanlah tuhan kami.” (Dr Abdul Rahim Ballouchiy)<br /><br />Jadi apa kaitan Syiah Rafidhah dengan Syiah Imam Dua Belas yang didakwahkan dalam diari Islam ini? Kaitannya ialah, kedua-dua jenis Syiah ini adalah sama, namun yang membezakannya hanyalah manhaj(jalan/metod) mereka. Syiah Rafidhah ialah nama yang berkaitan dengan manhaj terhadap para sahabat r.a, manakala Syiah Imam Dua Belas berkaitan dengan manhaj Politik (Hafiz Firdaus sepertimana yang beliau petik dari kajian Maulana Asri Muhammad Yusuf)<br /><br />Berbalik kepada 12 nama yang disenaraikan dalam diari tersebut sebagai imam, dan juga membawakan hadith staqalain bagi menguatkan hujah mereka dalam diari ini. Hadith ini dapat dilihat didalam diari tersebut di bahagian atas tajuk ‘Penguasa yang menguasai hari Pembalasan’. Saya tidak menafikan bahawa hadith tersebut sahih dan benar. Tetapi penjelasan yang dibuat oleh penyunting diari ini, sangat jelas mempunyai agenda Syiah. Hadith yang dinyatakan itu ialah,<br /><br />"Ketahuilah wahai manusia, sesungguhnya aku hanyalah manusia. Aku merasakan bahawa utusan Tuhan-Ku (Malaikat Maut) akan datang dan aku akan memenuhinya. Aku tinggalkan kepada kalian al-Tsaqalain (dua perkara yang penting): Yang pertama adalah Kitab Allah (al-Qur’an), di dalamnya terdapat petunjuk dan cahaya. Maka berpegang teguhlah dengan Kitab Allah. (Perawi – Zaid bin Arqam – menjelaskan bahawa Rasulullah menekankan kepada berpegang dengan Kitab Allah. Kemudian Rasulullah menyambung): (Yang kedua ialah) Dan Ahl al-Baitku, aku peringatkan kalian kepada Allah tentang Ahl al-Baitku. Aku peringatkan kalian kepada Allah tentang Ahl al-Baitku. Aku peringatkan kalian kepada Allah tentang Ahl al-Baitku." --- Sila rujuk penjelasan yang telah dibuat oleh saudara Hafiz Firdaus berkenaan dengan hadith ini di http://abuhaekal.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/hadits-hadits-rasulullah-yang-dijadikan-hujjah-oleh-syiah-hadits-al-tsaqalain/<br /><br />Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamaah tidak pernah menafikan kewujudan dua belas insan mulia tersebut. Tetapi yang membuatkan Ahlu Sunnah berhati-hati ialah, apabila mereka memaksumkan 12 (sepatutnya 11, saya akan terangkan kemudian) imam tersebut, dan membuat Dua Belas insan tersebut sebagai teori Ahlu Bait mereka. Ali bin Husain bin Ali iaitu cucu Saidina Ali serta keturunannya dengan tegas menolak pengiktirafan Imam oleh golongan Syiah. Ali bin Husain dan keturunannya beritikad bahawa sistem Khalifah bercirikan warisan, maksum, dan penentu syariat agama tidak pernah ditetapkan oleh Allah dan Rasul. Disamping itu, mereka menjelaskan bahawa Saidina Umar, Abu Bakar dan Uthman adalah Khalifah yang sah, dan mereka bertiga memiliki keutamaan dan kemuliaan melebihi semua orang manakala mereka, (Ali bin Husain dan keturunannya) hanyalah manusia biasa. (Hafiz Firdaus Jawapan Ahlu Sunnah kepada Syiah Rafidhah dalam persoalan Khalifah)<br /><br /><br />TEORI IMAM DUA BELAS<br /><br />Benar-benar wujudkaH Imam Dua Belas ini? Jawapannya tidak wujud. Kerana teori Imam Dua Belas ini hanyalah dicipta oleh kelompok Syiah sendiri. Insan-insan yang yang diletak oleh golongan Syiah ini wujud dan mereka adalah insan yang mulia. Tetapi teori Imamiyah yang mereka cipta itu hanyalah imaginasi mereka sendiri. Perkara ini dinyatakan sendirI oleh mereka dalam satu ‘hadith’ (hadith ini tidak pernah ada dalam kitab-kitab hadith Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamaah) yang diriwayatkan dari Al-Kulaini dalam Al-Kaafi (2/18) dari Zurarah dari Abu Ja’far, dia berkata: “Islam dibangun di atas lima perkara:… shalat, zakat, haji, shaum dan wilayah (imamah)…” Zurarah berkata: “Aku katakan, mana yang paling utama?” Dia berkata: “Yang paling utama adalah wilayah.” (Rujuk Badzlul Majhud, 1/174).<br /><br />Mereka memasukkan Saidina Ali, Hassan dan Husin sebagai penguat kepada teori mereka. Sedangkan selepas kewafatan Hassan bin Ali menurut sumber mereka sendiri bahawa syiah itu sendiri telah berpecah kepada 14 hingga 20 kumpulan (Rujuk Kajian Moojan Momen dalam bukunya ‘An Introduction to Shi’i Islam: Sumber sekunder Hafiz Firdaus). Kalau benar sekalipun, keturunan Ali bin Husain telah terhenti sehingga kepada Hassan bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Ja’afar al-Askari. Ini disebabkan Al-askari tidak mempunyai anak.<br /><br />Kerana terdesak untuk melengkapkan teori Imam Dua Belas. Golongan Syiah ini telah membuat satu teori tambahan dengan mewujudkan seorang lagi imam yang dikenali sebagai Imam Mahdi dengan meminjam iktikad Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamaah terhadap Imam Mahdi untuk melengkap Dua Belas Imam. Selain itu, untuk menambahkan lagi keunikan teori ini, mereka mengatakan bahawa Imam Mahdi ini ghaib dan akan muncul satu hari nanti.<br /><br />Teori Imam Dua Belas ini diperkuatkan lagi dengan memaksumkan kesemua mereka dari sebarang dosa dan mengetahui perkara-perkara ghaib, persis seperti Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. Hal ini dapat dilihat melalui ungkapan Al-Khumaini (Khomeini), “Kami bangga bahawa para imam kami adalah para imam yang maksum, mulai Ali bin Abu Thalib hingga Penyelamat Umat manusia Al-Imam Al-Mahdi, sang penguasa zaman -baginya dan bagi nenek moyangnya beribu-ribu penghormatan dan salam- yang dengan kehendak Allah Yang Maha Kuasa, dia hidup (pada saat ini) seraya mengawasi perkara-perkara yang ada.” (Rujuk Al-Washiyyah Al-Ilahiyyah, hal. 5, dinukil dari Firaq Mu’ashirah, 1/192)<br /><br />Dakwaan para Dua Belas Imam sama taraf dengan Nabi juga boleh dilihat dari ungkapan Muhammad Ridha al-Mudzaffar, “Kami (Syi‘ah) percaya bahawa al-Imamah, seperti kenabian, tidak dapat wujud kecuali dengan nas Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala melalui lisan Rasul-Nya shallallahu 'alaihi wasallam atau lisan Imam rahimahullah yang diangkat dengan nas apabila dia akan menyampaikan dengan nas imam yang bertugas sesudahnya. Hukum (sifatnya) ketika itu sama dengan kenabian tanpa perbezaan. Oleh kerana itu manusia tidak memiliki wewenang menyangkut siapa yang ditetapkan Allah sebagai pemberi petunjuk dan pembimbing bagi seluruh manusia, sebagaimana mereka (manusia) tidak mempunyai hak untuk menetapkan, mencalonkan atau memilihnya. (Rujuk Al-Aqaid Imamiyah yang dikemukakan oleh Hafiz Firdaus dalam kertas kerjanya ‘Bahaya Syiah kepada Umat Islam’)<br /><br /><br />APA TINDAKAN KITA SELEPAS MENGETAHUI?<br /><br />Kita sudah mengenali tentang teori Imam Dua Belas ini. Dan seharusnya kita jelas bahawa senarai Imam yang terdapat dalam diari tersebut dan penggunaan hadith staqalain dalam diari tersebut, adalah dakwah Syiah yang sangat halus dan licik menyelinap dalam kehidupan Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamaah. “Jadi, adakah kita perlu membuang diari tersebut?” Tidak! Tidak perlu kita membuangnya, kerana diari tersebut jika tidak ada senarai imam tersebut dan beberapa penjelasan syiah yang tidak berasas, diari tersebut sangat berguna untuk kita gunakan.<br /><br />Cukuplah kita memahami perkara ini, dan sebar-sebarkan kepada rakan-rakan kita yang telah membelinya agar tidak terpengaruh dengan dakyah Syiah ini. “Jangan kerana nyamuk, kelambu dibakarnya” saya rasa pepatah itu sesuai untuk diari ini. Kita abaikan penjelasan syiah tersebut, dan gunakan diari tersebut seperti biasa. Moga kita sentiasa berhati-hati dalam setiap bahan bacaan yang kita baca dan beli. Ingatlah bahawa Syiah adalah sesuatu yang bahaya bagi Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamaah.<br /><br />Bagi pihak berwajib pula, haruslah menggunakan kuasa yang ada untuk membenteras aktiviti ini. Seharusnya Fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh Jakim bahawa Syiah ini sesat, dijadikan panduan dan ‘lampu hijau’ untuk melakukan tindakan terhadap penerbit diari ini. Moga Allah memberi jalan dan petunjuk kepada pihak yang bertanggungjawab.<br /><br /><br />PENAFIAN ULAMA TERHADAP SYIAH RAFIDHAH<br /><br />Asy-Syaikh Dr. Ibrahim Ar-Ruhaili di dalam kitabnya Al-Intishar Lish Shahbi Wal Aal (hal. 100-153) menukilkan banyak perkataan para ulama tentang mereka. Antaranya ialah:<br />1. Al-Imam ‘Amir Asy-Sya’bi berkata: “Aku tidak pernah melihat kaum yang lebih dungu dari Syi’ah.” (As-Sunnah, 2/549, karya Abdullah bin Al-Imam Ahmad)<br /><br />2. Al-Imam Sufyan Ats-Tsauri ketika ditanya tentang seorang yang mencela Abu Bakar dan Umar, beliau berkata: “Ia telah kafir kepada Allah.” Kemudian ditanya: “Apakah kita menyembahyangkan mereka (bila meninggal dunia)?” Beliau berkata: “Tidak, tiada kehormatan (baginya)….” (Siyar A’lamin Nubala, 7/253)<br /><br />3. Al-Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal berkata: “Aku tidak melihat dia (orang yang mencela Abu Bakar, Umar, dan Aisyah) itu orang Islam.” (As-Sunnah, 1/493, karya Al-Khallal)<br /><br />4. Al-Imam Al-Bukhari berkata: “Bagiku sama saja apakah aku solat di belakang Jahmi, dan Rafidhi atau di belakang Yahudi dan Nashara (yakni sama-sama tidak boleh). Mereka tidak boleh diberi salam, tidak dikunjungi ketika sakit, tidak dinikahkan, tidak dijadikan saksi, dan tidak dimakan sembelihan mereka.” (Khalqu Af’alil ‘Ibad, hal. 125)<br /><br />5. Al-Imam Abu Zur’ah Ar-Razi berkata: “Jika engkau melihat orang yang mencela salah satu dari shahabat , maka ketahuilah bahwa dia seorang zindiq. Yang demikian itu karena Rasul bagi kita haq, dan Al Qur’an haq, dan sesungguhnya yang menyampaikan Al Qur’an dan As Sunnah adalah para sahabat . Sungguh mereka mencela para saksi kita (para shahabat) Rasulullah dengan tujuan untuk meniadakan Al Qur’an dan As Sunnah. Mereka (Rafidhah) lebih pantas untuk dicela dan mereka adalah zanadiqah.” (Al-Kifayah, hal. 49, karya Al-Khathib Al-Baghdadi)<br /><br />P/S: Jika ada salah fakta dalam menulis perihal syiah sila betulkan. Harap maklum.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-9825059912318591772009-02-10T09:52:00.001+03:002009-02-10T09:54:05.143+03:00SMS dan Pesanan Khas Dari Pemimpin Hizbullah? Hukum Menyebar-luaskannya...Oleh: Ibn Mustofa Dzul Riyhayn Bin Abd Wahab<br />Sumber: http://purify-educate.blogspot.com<br /><br />Tahun baru masihi 2009 kali ini membuka tirainya dengan penuh duka dan luka. Rejim Zionis yahudi la’natullah telah melakukan tindakan bacul dan biadap tanpa perikemanusiaan dengan menyerang dan membunuh rakyat Palestin secara membabi-buta, tanpa mengira masyarakat awam yang tidak bersenjata dengan pejuang HAMAS yang mereka buru. Merekalah sebiadap-biadap insan di muka bumi ini. Firman Allah SWT:<br /><br />”Orang-orang Yahudi dan Nasrani tidak sekali-kali akan redha kepadamu (wahai Muhammad) sehingga Engkau menurut agama mereka (yang telah terpesong itu). Katakanlah (kepada mereka): "Sesungguhnya petunjuk Allah (agama Islam) itulah petunjuk yang benar". dan demi sesungguhnya jika Engkau menurut kehendak hawa nafsu mereka sesudah datangnya (wahyu Yang memberi) pengetahuan kepadamu (tentang kebenaran), maka tiadalah Engkau akan peroleh dari Allah (sesuatupun) yang dapat mengawal dan memberi pertolongan kepadamu.” [Surah al-Baqarah, 2:120]<br /><br />Tindakan tak berperikemanusiaan rejim Zionis ke atas penduduk Palestin dengan pantas telah membuka mata sekaligus mengundang banyak perhatian masyarakat dunia. Pelbagai bentuk bantahan telah diadakan di hampir seluruh pelosok dunia demi mengutuk tindakan kejam Israel ke atas Palestin serta menggesa boneka dan ’kuda tunggangan’ Israel; Amerika Syarikat untuk mengadakan sekatan ke atas negara haram Israel dan memberhentikan tindakan kejam mereka. Seluruh lapisan masyarakat dunia tanpa mengira bangsa dan agama telah menunjukkan rasa simpati mereka terhadap penderitaan yang dihadapi rakyat Palestin.<br /><br />Peristiwa ini telah menyebabkan ramai pihak menjadi ’ringan tangan’ ingin menghulurkan bantuan dalam apa saja bentuk yang mereka termampu berpaksikan rasa simpati kemanusiaan yang ada di dalam diri mereka. Ada yang menghulurkan sumbangan dari segi harta (wang ringgit), ada pula yang menyumbang dalam bentuk pakaian dan ubat-ubatan, dan ada pula yang mengambil langkah mendo’akan dibantunya saudara seislam di Palestin dan dihancurkan bangsa Yahudi zionis Israel. Bahkan, ada yang menyebar-luaskan mesej berbentuk khidmat pesanan ringkas (SMS) yang bertulis:<br /><br />”Pemimpin Hizbullah Lebanon, Sayid Hasan Nashrullah meminta seluruh masyarakat muslimin untuk melafazkan ayat Quran berikut: Surah al-Fath ayat 26-27, surah Yunus ayat 85, 86 dan 87 pada malam ini. Tolong sebarkan agar Israel hancur. Sebarkan kepada seluruh umat Islam... ”<br /><br />Demikianlah, pesanan yang diterima-langsung dari pemimpin besar Hizbullah yang beraliran Syi’ah. Pesanan ringkas yang sarat dengan petua-petua dan amalan-amalan yang ’berbaur’ agama. Masyarakat kita (orang melayu), dek kerana kadar ke’sedar’an dan simpatinya yang tinggi tanpa berfikir-panjang terus menyebar-luaskan mesej-mesej seumpama ini. Bukan saja tanpa ada sikap mahu menilai ataupun menganalisa kembali kebenaran, disebalik dakwaan penyebar mesej ini bahawa SMS ini dititipkan khas dari Nashrullah, bahkan juga sejauhmana kebenaran dan ketepatan ’amalan khas’ yang diperturunkan Nashrullah itu di neraca timbangan al-Quran dan al-Sunnah. Tanpa tahu menahu ataupun mungkin terlupa akan firman Allah SWT akan situasi ini:<br /><br />”Wahai orang-orang yang beriman! Jika datang kepada kamu seorang yang fasiq membawa sesuatu berita, maka selidikilah (untuk menentukan)kebenarannya, supaya kamu tidak menimpakan sesuatu kaum dengan perkara yang tidak diingini - dengan sebab kejahilan kamu (mengenainya) - sehingga menjadikan kamu menyesali apa yang kamu telah lakukan.” [Surah al-Hujurat, 49: 6]<br /><br />Kata al-Qadhi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi:<br /><br />”Siapa yang pasti kefasikkannya maka batallah perkataannya (hilang kredibiliti) di dalam menyampaikan berita. Ini adalah ijma’. Sebabnya adalah berita itu suatu amanah dan kefasikkan pula adalah sesuatu yang membatalkannya.”<br /><br />[Ibn al-Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an, 4/147, cetakan Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, Beirut. Dinukil dari: Dr Mohd Asri Bin Zainul Abidin, Menangkis Pencemaran Terhadap Agama dan Tokoh-Tokohnya, Terbitan Karya Bestari, m/s 12]<br /><br />Bagaimana mungkin kita boleh menerima berita dan petua agama daripada individu (Nashrullah yang merupakan seorang syi’ah) yang jelas pegangan ideologinya mencela dan mengakfirkan majoriti para sahabah seperti Abu Bakar, Umar al-Khattab, Utsman al-’Affan, Abdurahman al-’Auf ,menuduh isteri baginda Nabi SAW; ’Aeesyah seorang perempuan yang jalang, serta mendakwa bahawa al-Qur’an yang ada sekarang tidak lengkap?! Bagaimana mungkin kitaq boleh mempercayai kata-kata dari seorang yang syi’ah dalam perkara keagamaan?! Terlupakah kita akan sabda Nabi SAW:<br /><br />”Janganlah kalian mencerca sahabahku.”<br /><br />[Hadits riwayat Muslim IV/1967, Dinukil dari: Dr Sa’id Bin Ali Bin Wahf al-Qohtani, Ya Rabbi... Selamatkan Lisanku (Terjemahan dari A-fat al-Lisan fi Daw al-Qur’an wa al-Sunnah), Terjemahan AQWAM Jembatan Ilmu, m/s 134]<br /><br />Abdullah Bin Mas’ud radhiyallah ’anhu meriwayatkan bahawa Nabi SAW bersabda:<br /><br />”Mencaci/mencela seorang muslim (menyebabkan seseorang menjadi) fasiq.”<br /><br />[Hadits riwayat al-Bukhari I/17, Muslim I/18, Al-Lu’ Lu’ wa al-Marjan I/13. Dinukil dari: ibid, m/s 135]<br /><br />Al-Imam al-Nawawi rahimahullah menjelaskan hadits ini:<br /><br />”Ketahuilah, bahawa mencaci para sahabah radhiyallahu ’anhum adalah keharaman yang paling keji...”<br /><br />[Rujuk: Shahih Muslim bi Syarh al-Nawawi XVI/93. Dinukil dari: ibid, m/s 134]<br /><br />Demikianlah, Rasulullah SAW memberitahu kita yang sesiapa yang mencaci seorang muslim maka dia adalah fasiq. Akan tetapi, syi’ah bukan sahaja mencaci para sahabah, bahkan ada yang sampai ke tahap mengkafirkan para sahabah. Ada yang percaya dengan konsep raj’ah (kelahiran semula ke dunia selepas mati) dan berbagai kepercayaan karut-marut lagi. Lantas, tak hairan ramai daripada para ulama’ besar Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah mengatakan yang golongan syi’ah terkeluar dari Islam seperti yang diperkatakan oleh al-Imam Ibn Hazm al-Andalusy.<br /><br />[Rujuk: Maulana Mohd Asri Yusoff, Syi’ah Rafidhah: Di Antara Kecuaian Ulama’ dan Kebingungan Ummah, Terbitan Pustaka Bisyarah, m/s 4-5]<br /><br />Di dalam kitab Ushul al-Kahfi karangan al-Kulaini; yang merupakan kitab hadits yang paling utama dan dipegang di dalam golongan Syi’ah mereka bahkan mengangkat para Imam mereka setaraf dengan para Rasul bahkan lebih daripada mereka. Mereka mendakwa para Imam mengetahui bila waktu kematian mereka dan hanya mati dengan kematian mereka. Bahkan yang lebih serius lagi mereka mendakwa para Imam mengetahui perkara ghaib yang terdahulu dan akan datang.<br /><br />[Rujuk: Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, Menangkis Pencemaran Terhadap Agama dan Tokoh-Tokohnya, Terbitan Karya Bestari, m/s 93-98]<br /><br />Jika difikirkan secara kritis serta rasional, kebarangkalian mesej tersebut (dikirim dan dipesan oleh Nashrullah) palsu adalah seratus peratus. Bak kata Kapten Protaz Hafiz Firdaus ketika mengulas tentang hal ini, beliau telah memberi istilah yang ianya adalah ’Made in Malaysia’.<br /><br />[Rujuk: Hafiz Firdaus, Himpunan Risalah Dalam Beberapa Persoalan Ummah Buku 5, Terbitan Jahabersa, m/s 56]<br /><br />Di dalam hadits Nabi SAW ada larangan yang jelas agar tidak membawa semua cerita yang didengar atau diterima tanpa menyelidikinya. Bahkan perbuatan tersebut dianggap sebahagian daripada pendustaan. Sabda Nabi SAW:<br /><br />”Cukuplah sesorang itu digelar pendusta sekiranya dia menceritakan setiap (perkara) yang dia dengar.”<br /><br />[Riwayat Muslim dalam mukadimah Shahihnya]<br /><br />Islam telah mensyaratkan setiap perkara yang dikaitkan dengan agama itu mestilah berpaksikan fakta yang shahih bersumberkan al-Quran dan al-Sunnah. Inilah disiplin yang dipegang oleh Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. Namun, ada sebahagian individu ataupun kelompok yang terbabas saat hendak melakukan sesuatu amal yang tujuannya baik. Hanya beralasan matlamat yang baik mereka menyangka mereka boleh mencipta sesuatu ibadah dalam Islam. Perlu diingat, Islam bukanlah serupa sebagaimana teori yang dikemukakan oleh Niccolo Machievelli dalam buku karyanya The Prince yakni ”Matlamat menghalalkan cara”.<br /><br />Teori bertuhankan akal dan nafsu oleh Machievelli ini telah lama lagi dinafikan kerelevannya oleh al-Qur’an dan al-Sunnah. Makanya, tidak sepatutnya wujud umat Islam yang mahu meniru teori kebajikan Robin Hood dari hutan Sherwood yang menghalalkan jenayah rompakan berdalihkan hasil rompakan tersebut akan diagihkan kepada masyarakat miskin England. Islam menuntut umatnya bukan cukup setakat beramal, tapi yang menjadi tuntutan dalam Islam adalah amal yang soleh. Kriteria bagi sesuatu amal soleh itu ia mestilah memenuhi dua syarat ini yakni: 1) ikhlas dan 2) Ittiba’ (mengikuti sunnah). Ini seperti yang ditafsirkan oleh al-Qadhi Fudhail Bin Iyadh. Takutilah amal yang kita lakukan selama ini berhamburan tidak bernilai pada pandangan Allah di hari akhirat kelak.<br /><br />Buktinya, sahabah Nabi SAW yang terkenal dengan kefaqihannya yakni Ibn Mas’ud radhiyallahu ’anhu telah menegur dengan keras beberapa indivdu yang membentuk bulatan lalu bertasbih, bertakbir, dan bertahlil di zamannya bahkan mengatakan pada mereka itu adanya ciri-ciri khawarij; salah satu kelompok sesat yang dikhabarkan Nabi SAW dalam haditsnya yang shahih. Hayatilah peristiwa yang telah terakam dalam sejarah ini dan sematkanlah ia di dalam jiwa kita semua:<br /><br />”Demi Allah wahai Abu Abdurrahaman (Abdullah Bin Mas’ud), sesungguhnya kami hanya bertujuan baik.” Jawabnya (Abdullah Bin Mas’ud): ”Betapa ramai yang bertujuan baik namun tidak menepatinya[/i].”<br /><br />[Riwayat al-Darimi dalam Musnadnya dan dinilai shahih oleh Syaikh Muhammad Nashiruddin al-Albani dalam [i]Silsilah al-Ahadits al-Shahihah. Dinukil dari: Dr Mohd Asri Bin Zainul Abidin, Bid’ah Hasanah: Istilah yang Disalah-Fahami, Terbitan Jahabersa, m/s 74]<br /><br />Jika difikirkan dengan teliti, tidakkah pensyari’atan supaya bertahmid, bertasbih dan bertahlil itu ada dalilnya dari al-Sunnah? Namun begitu, kenapa sahabah Nabi Ibn Mas’ud dan Abu Musa al-Asy’ari tidak menyetujui bahkan membangkang secara keras amal sebegitu? Jawabnya kerana ianya tidak menepati tatacara sebagaimana sunnah yang disyari’atkan Nabi SAW.<br /><br />Diriwayatkan pula daripada Nafi’ (guru al-Imam al-Bukhari):<br /><br />”Seorang lelaki telah bersin disebelah Ibn ’Umar radhiyallahu ’anhuma lalu mengucapkan: ”Alhamdulillah wassalam ’ala Rasulillah.” Ibn ’Umar lantas menegur: ”Aku juga pernah mengatakan Alhamdulillah wassalam ’ala Rasulillah (akan tetapi) bukan begitu yang diajar oleh Rasulullah SAW kepada kami (selepas bersin). Baginda SAW mengajar kami agar menyebut Alhamdulillah dalam setiap keadaan.”<br /><br />[Hadits yang shahih. Riwayat al-Tirmidzi no: 2738 dan riwayat al-Hakim dalam al-Mustadrak jilid 4, Kitab al-Adab, no: 265 dan lafaz adalah bagi al-Tirmidzi. Dinukil dari: Mohd Yaakub Mohd Yunus, Fahaman Wahabi Menular: Satu Analisis Terhadap Dakwaan yang Ditimbulkan Oleh Akhbar Utusan Malaysia, Ternbitan Jahabersa, m/s 14]<br /><br />Sekali lagi, cuba renungi, bukankah penambahan wassalam ’ala Rasulullah pada kalimah tahmid (Alhamdulillah) itu sesuatu yang kelihatannya baik? Bukankah pensyari’atan supaya umat Islam berselawat pada Rasulnya itu ada diriwayatkan di dalam hadits Shahih Muslim? Kenapa sahabah Nabi SAW; Ibn ‘Umar anak kepada Amirul Mukminin Umar al-Khattab membantah tindakan lelaki itu? Kenapa? Jawabnya kerana ianya tidak menepati tatacara sebagaimana sunnah yang disyari’atkan Nabi SAW.<br /><br />Ini dapat difahami daripada perkataan al-Imam as-Subki (salah seorang penentu qowl mu’tamad dalam mazhab al-Syafi’e) seperti yang dinukilkan oleh al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani:<br /><br />“Asal hukum di dalam ibadat adalah tawaqquf (berhenti hingga ada dalil)”.<br /><br />[Rujuk: Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Penjelasan Shahih al-Bukhari, Terjemahan Pustaka Azzam, m/s]<br /><br />Syaikh Muhammad Soleh al-Utsaimin rahimahullah telah menjelaskan syarat yang wajib dipenuhi dalam ibadah ada enam syarat yakni sebab, jenis, kadar, kaifiyyat (tatacara), waktu, dan tempat. Sebagai contoh membaca do’a khusus dari al-Qur’an dan al-hadits seperti surah al-Fath ayat 26-27 dengan tujuan mahu memperoleh bantuan Allah, dan pada waktu tertentu seperti ketika saat genting diserang musuh adalah tiada sumbernya daripada al-Sunnah yang tsabit daripada Nabi SAW. Pengkhususan itu yang menyebabkan ianya tertolak. Pendek kata; bid’ah.<br /><br />[Rujuk: Syaikh Muhammad Soleh al-Utsaimin, Mutiara Ilmu: Himpunan Tiga Buah Buku (di bawah bab al-Ibda’ fi Kamal al-Islam wa Khothru al-Ibda’), Terbitan Jahabersa, m/s 78-81]<br /><br />Sabda Nabi SAW:<br /><br />”Barangsiapa yang melakukan suatu amalan yang tiada dasar perintahnya daripada kami maka ianya tertolak.”<br /><br />[Hadits shahih riwayat Muslim (1178). Dinukil dari: Kompilasi Empat Ulama’ Besar (Imam al-Nawawi, Imam Ibn Daqiq al-E’id, Syaikh Abdurrahman as-Sa’di, Syaikh Muhammad Soleh al-Utsaimin), Syarah Hadits Arba’in, Terbitan Pustaka Arafah, m/s 111]<br /><br />Kesimpulan yang saya ingin tegaskan disini, seharusnya kita melakukan apa telah diriwayatkan dari Nabi SAW bahawa beliau pernah mengerjakan qunut nazilah selama satu bulan penuh untuk mendoakan suatu kaum. Dan ditegaskan pula beliau pernah membaca qunut nazilah untuk mendoakan suatu kaum tertindas dari para sahabah beliau, di mana mereka ditawan oleh orang-orang yang melarang mereka berhijrah. Dengan demikian adalah disunnahkan membaca qunut nazilah pada saat terjadinya kejadian yang menyengsarakan kaum muslimin dengan membaca doa-doa yang sesuai dengan keadaan, baik mendoakan kebaikan atau keburukan bagi suatu kaum, atau sesuai dengan peristiwa yang dialami. Hadits-hadits berkenaan hal ini banyak. Inilah yang diperjelaskan oleh Dr. Sa’id Bin Ali Bin Wahf al-Qohtani.<br /><br />[Rujuk: Dr. Sa’id Bin Ali Bin Wahf al-Qohtani, Panduan Shalat Lengkap (Terjemahan dari Shalatul Mu’min: Mafhum wa Fadha’il wa Adaab wa Anwa’ wa Ahkam wa Kaifiyyatu fi Dhaw’i al-Qur’an wa al-Sunnah), Terjemahan Penerbit al-Mahira, m/s 267-272][/align]<br />[/size]Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-17229731972871970062009-02-10T09:48:00.001+03:002009-02-10T09:50:38.828+03:00Iman Dan Amal-amal Soleh Sebagai Formula Meraih Kebangkitan Umat IslamOleh: Nawawi<br />Sumber: http://an-nawawi.blogspot.com/<br /><br />Pada hari ini, penganut agama Islam adalah antara yang teramai dan terbesar di muka bumi ini. Sebahagian besar di antara mereka sentiasa mengharapkan umat Islam berupaya meraih kembali zaman kegemilangannya sebagaimana yang dicapai di era Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam bersama para Sahabat-sahabatnya.<br /><br />Namun pada hari ini, umat Islam kelihatan begitu jauh ketinggalan, tahap kekuatannya menurun, kerap tertindas, berpecah-belah tidak bersatu (berpuak-puak), dan saling bertelagah di antara satu sama lain. Daripada keadaan ini, maka apakah jalan penyelesaiannya, dan apakah faktor penyebabnya?<br /><br />Marilah sama-sama kita bermuhasabah, melihat dan merenungi situasi yang kita dan seluruh umat Islam hadapi ini berpandukan dari dalil demi dalil. Bertepatan dengan prinsip-prinsip asas Islam itu sendiri iaitu mengembalikan setiap urusannya dengan merujuk kepada al-Qur’an dan as-Sunnah yang sahih.<br /><br />Kemunduran Umat Islam<br /><br />Sebahagian umat Islam beranggapan bahawa kemunduran umat Islam adalah berpunca dari faktor penguasaan ekonomi yang lemah, dan dengan sebab ini, mereka pun berusaha dengan bersungguh-sungguh bagi meningkatkan tahap ekonomi mereka. Sebahagian lagi berpendapat bahawa kemunduran ini adalah kerana umat Islam gagal dalam meraih kedudukan di tampuk politik, dengan itu mereka pun berhempas-pulas mendirikan parti-parti politik, meraih sokongan, sekaligus berusaha sedaya-upaya menguasai kerusi-kerusi politik. Manakala sebahagiannya lagi berpendapat bahawa zaman ini umat Islam tidak memiliki daulah Islamiyyah (negara yang menerapkan hukum Islam), maka dengan sebab tersebut umat Islam menjadi lemah selemah-lemahnya tanpa sebarang pembelaan dan naungan. Dengan sebab ini juga, mereka pun melaung-laungkan suara kebangkitan supaya diadakan dengan segera daulah khilafah yang dengan terbinanya ia nanti bakal membolehkan seluruh umat Islam mengangkat seorang khalifah yang sekaligus menaungi seluruh umat Islam.<br /><br />Persoalannya, benarkah pendapat-pendapat mereka ini? Hakikatnya, apa yang terjadi adalah umat Islam menjadi lebih berpecah-belah dan jauh dari nilai-nilai Islam yang sebenar.<br /><br />Oleh itu, mari kita lihat terlebih dahulu satu demi satu, apakah faktor yang sebenarnya yang telah menjadikan umat Islam begitu lemah sekali pada hari ini,<br /><br />1 – Umat Islam Jauh Dari Ilmu dan Ajaran Islam Yang Sebenar,<br /><br />Ini dapat dilihat apabila lahirnya pelbagai kelompok manusia serta umat Islam sendiri di mana setiap kelompok mereka dibarisi tokoh-tokoh mereka masing-masing. Mereka hanya mengikuti tidak lain melainkan tokoh-tokoh mereka. Mereka menjauhi para ulama dan pembawa panji ilmu yang sebenar. Malah mereka buta dari mengenali siapakah sebenarnya ulama.<br /><br />Dari ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr radhiyallahu ‘anhu, beliau mendengar Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam bersabda:<br /><br />“Sebenarnya Allah tidak menganggkat (menghilangkan) ilmu dengan mencabut begitu saja dari para hamba-Nya. Akan tetapi, Dia mencabutnya dengan mematikan para ulama, sehingga apabila tiada seorang pun yang berilmu, manusia akan memilih pemimpin yang jahil; jika mereka (pemimpin itu) ditanya maka mereka berfatwa tanpa ilmu, maka mereka tersesat dan menyesatkan.” (Hadis Riwayat al-Bukhari, 1/176)<br /><br />Dan Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala berfirman (maksudnya):<br /><br />“... nescaya Allah akan meninggikan orang-orang yang beriman di antara kamu dan orang-orang yang memiliki ilmu pengetahuan beberapa darjat” (al-Mujadilah, 58: 11)<br /><br />Ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa kemuliaan (ketinggian darjat) umat Islam itu diberikan kepada mereka yang beriman dan memiliki ilmu pengetahuan. Sudah tentu ilmu yang paling utama yang dimaksudkan adalah berkaitan dengan pembinaan dasar keimanan dan peribadatan. Ini adalah kerana asas-asas keimanan yang betul dan konsep ibadah yang sahih merupakan sebuah identiti yang membina jatidiri seseorang muslim. Dan dengan ilmu-ilmu yang asas ini kelak ia bakal menjadi tunjang nadi membina kerangka manhaj (prinsip) dan tapak kepada sebuah kejayaan yang besar, jika tidak di dunia, ia bakal membuahkan kebahagian di akhirat. Sekaligus menjadi akar kepada pelbagai cabang ilmu yang selainnya. Tanpa jatidiri yang benar ini, apalah ertinya jika seseorang itu mahir di dalam pelbagai cabang ilmu selainnya, kerana ia tidak akan mencerminkan gambaran Islam yang sebenar pada dirinya.<br /><br />2 - Mereka Mendustakan Syari’at Islam,<br /><br />Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala berfirman (maksudnya):<br /><br />“Dan sesungguhnya Kami telah meneguhkan kedudukan mereka dalam persoalan yang Kami belum pernah meneguhkan kedudukanmu dalam hal itu dan Kami telah memberikan kepada mereka pendengaran, penglihatan dan hati; tetapi pendengaran, penglihatan dan hati mereka itu tidak berguna sedikit pun bagi mereka, kerana mereka selalu mengingkari ayat-ayat Allah dan mereka telah diliputi oleh balasan siksa yang dahulu selalu mereka memperolok-olokkannya.” (Surah al-Ahqaaf, 46: 26)<br /><br />“Wahai orang-orang yang beriman, masuklah kamu ke dalam Islam secara keseluruhannya (kaffah), dan janganlah kamu turuti langkah-langkah syaitan. Sesungguhnya syaitan itu musuh yang jelas bagimu.” (Surah al-Baqarah, 2: 208)<br /><br />Kebanyakan apa yang berlaku hari ini, begitu ramai sekali umat Islam yang meninggalkan syari’at Islam yang sebenar. Mereka meremeh-remehkan agama. Mereka meninggalkan sebahagian dari agama kerana beranggapan terdapat sebahagian syari’at di dalam Islam ini yang sudah tidak lagi sesuai (tidak relevan) untuk diamalkan, malah hanya bakal mengundang kejumudan dalam menjalani kehidupan di era sains dan teknologi. Mereka menganggap apa yang mereka tinggalkan sebagai suatu perkara yang remeh-temeh, malah dengan sebuah penghinaan.<br /><br />Sebagai contohnya, terdapat beberapa pihak tertentu yang mempersenda-sendakan hukuman hudud dan mempergunakannya bagi tujuan meraih sokongan di dalam kancah semasa dan politik. Contoh yang lain, pada masa ini begitu ramai sekali lelaki umat Islam yang berbangga dengan pakaian labuhnya (seluar, jubah, kain) melebihi mata kaki (berisbal) dengan meninggalkan larangan isbal itu sendiri. Sedangkan telah jelas larangan berpakaian isbal bagi lelaki. Namun, disebabkan kedegilan hati mereka, mereka bukan sahaja tidak mengikuti malahan mereka bangkit dengan sebuah penghinaan yang antaranya dengan mengatakan:<br /><br />“Memendekkan pakaian (tidak berisbal) adalah pakaian orang-orang fasiq dan menyerupai kumpulan skinhead, tak kan kami mahu memakai pakaian ala-ala skinhead?”<br /><br />Sebenarnya mereka lupa bahawa pakaian tanpa isbal adalah mencontohi pakaian Nabi Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam. Malah ia tidaklah sebagaimana yang dikatakan sebagai menyerupai pakaian skinhead. Jauh sekali bezanya. Ternyata sungguh jahil sekali mereka tentang agama sehingga sanggup mempersendakannya pula. Mereka memandang perkara ini remeh, dan mempersenda-sendakannya namun hakikatnya, tahukah siapa yang sedang mereka hinakan?<br /><br />Banyak lagi contoh dalam persoalan lainnya seperti dalam persoalan asas-asas solat itu sendiri yang mereka tinggalkan seperti meninggalkan syi'ar solat secara berjama’ah di masjid, meninggalkan (tidak menghiraukan) perintah merapatkan saf, meremehkan solat ketika dalam keadaan sakit, meninggalkan solat ketika sedang bermusafir, bersenang-lenang dengan amalan riba’, meremehkan kewajiban menutup aurat, bebas bercampur-gaul di antara sesama lelaki dan wanita, serta pelbagai lagi contoh lainnya. Jika perkara-perkara asas ini pun mereka tidak prihatin dan memperlecehkannya, bagaimana mungkin umat Islam akan maju melangkah ke medan yang seterusnya?<br /><br />Maka, sewajarnya kita berhati-hati dalam bertindak memulakan langkah sebagai seorang yang tulus dalam beragama. Janganlah kita menuruti hawa nafsu, yang dengannya hanya akan menutupi pintu-pintu hidayah. Kerana Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala berfirman (maksdunya):<br /><br />“Maka pernahkah kamu melihat orang yang menjadikan hawa nafsunya sebagai tuhannya dan Allah membiarkannya berdasarkan ilmu-Nya dan Allah telah mengunci mati pendengaran dan hatinya dan meletakkan tutupan atas penglihatannya? Maka siapakah yang akan memberinya petunjuk sesudah Allah (membiarkannya sesat). Maka mengapa kamu tidak mengambil pelajaran?” (Surah al-Jatsiyah, 45: 23)<br /><br />3 – Umat Islam Suka dan Berbangga Meniru Peradaban Orang Kafir,<br /><br />Ini jelas dapat dilihat melalui sistem kehidupan seharian mereka sendiri di mana bermula dari cara berpakaian (merujuk persoalan aurat dan pakaian kaum yang fasiq), perlaksanaan ekonomi (sistem kapitalis dan riba’), sistem politik mereka (mengambil sistem demokrasi), cara berfikir (berfalsafah dan liberal), dan lebih teruk lagi apabila mereka mengmbil idola-idola mereka dari kaum kafir sendiri (mengikuti tokoh-tokoh falsafah barat, mengambil/mencontohi trend para artis, pemain bola sepak, atau seumpama).<br /><br />Dalam persoalan ini, Nabi Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam sendiri telah bersabda:<br /><br />“Barangsiapa yang menyerupai suatu kaum, maka dia termasuk ke dalam kaum tersebut.”<br /><br />Juga sabdanya, dari Abu Sa’id al-Khudri radhiyallahu ‘anhu:<br /><br />“Sungguh kamu akan mengikuti jejak dan jalan orang-orang sebelum kamu sejengkal demi sejengkal, seterusnya sehasta demi sehasta, sehingga bila mereka memasuki lubang dhob (binatang seperti biawak) pun kamu akan mengikutinya.” Lalu kami bertanya:<br /><br />“Wahai Rasulullah, adakah yang engkau maksudkan itu orang Yahudi dan Nashrani?” Beliau menjawab: “Siapa lagi sekiranya bukan mereka.” (Hadis Riwayat al-Bukhari, 22/298)<br /><br />Di sini dapat kita renungi iaitu apabila umat Islam sendiri secara umumnya meniru corak pemikiran orang Yahudi dan Nashrani, meniru gaya hidup mereka, mencotohi perlaksanaan ekonomi mereka (contoh: sistem kapitalis, riba’), walhal mereka tahu bahawa ia (Yahudi & Nashrani) adalah musuh kaum muslimin, maka bagaimana umat Islam akan meraih kegemilangan?<br /><br />4 – Umat Islam Berpuak-puak Dan Fanatik Kepada Puak Masing-masing,<br /><br />Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala melarang keras perpecahan dan memerintahkan supaya umat Islam bersatu.<br /><br />“...Dan janganlah kamu termasuk orang-orang yang mempersekutukan Allah, iaitu orang-orang yang memecah-belah agama mereka dan mereka menjadi beberapa golongan. Setiap golongan merasa bangga dengan apa yang ada pada golongan mereka.” (Surah ar-Rum, 30: 31-32)<br /><br />“Dan berpeganglah kamu semuanya kepada tali (agama) Allah, dan janganlah kamu bercerai berai” (Surah Ali Imran, 3: 103)<br /><br />Namun pada hari ini begitu jelas sekali menunjukkan betapa umat Islam berpecah-belah menjadi beberapa kumpulan yang sangat banyak. Mereka sebahagiannya mewarisi perpecahan kaum khawarij (takfiri dan menetang barisan pemerintah), muktazilah (mendahulukan akal berbanding nash dan dalil-dalil agama yang sahih), jabbariyah (yang mendustakan takdir), qadariyyah (yang berserah kepada takdir semata-mata), ahli ra’yi (yang mentafsirkan agama dengan akal fikiran), sufi (yang mempercayai syari’at baru datang melalui mimpi), kelompok syi’ah yang menzahirkan seakan-akan Islam (golongan yang mencela para sahabat Nabi dan berusaha mereka-cipta dalil-dalil agama mereka sendiri), dan banyak lagi yang lainnya.<br /><br />5 – Menyimpan Perasaan Hasad Dengki,<br /><br />Sebahagian tokoh umat Islam memiliki perasaan dengki (tidak berpuas hati) apabila kebenaran itu berada di pihak orang lain dan bukan di pihaknya. Mereka hanya ingin kebenaran itu datang darinya dan tidak mahu menerima kebenaran itu apabila datang dari orang lain.<br /><br />“Tidaklah berselisih tentang kitab itu melainkan orang yang telah didatangkan kepada mereka kitab, iaitu setelah datang kepada mereka keterangan-keterangan yang nyata, kerana dengki di antara mereka sendiri. Maka Allah memberi petunjuk orang-orang yang beriman kepada kebenaran berkenaan perkara yang mereka perselisihkan itu dengan kehendak-Nya. Dan Allah selalu memberi petunjuk orang yang dikehendaki-Nya kepada jalan yang lurus.” (Surah al-Baqarah, 2: 213)<br /><br />6 – Mereka Meninggalkan Jalan Kebenaran (Prinsip) Yang Telah Ditempuh Oleh Salafus Soleh (Golongan Umat Islam Generasi Awal),<br /><br />Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala berfirman (maksudnya):<br /><br />“Dan barangsiapa yang menentang Rasul sesudah jelas kebenaran baginya, dan mengikuti jalan yang bukan jalan orang-orang mukmin, Kami biarkan ia bergelumang di dalam kesesatan yang telah dikuasainya itu dan Kami masukkan ia ke dalam Jahannam, dan Jahannam itu seburuk-buruk tempat kembali.” (Surah an-Nisa’, 4: 115)<br /><br />“Orang-orang yang terdahulu lagi yang pertama-tama (masuk Islam) dari golongan muhajirin dan anshar dan orang-orang yang mengikuti mereka dengan baik, Allah redha kepada mereka dan mereka pun redha kepada Allah dan Allah menyediakan bagi mereka syurga-syurga yang mengalir sungai-sungai di dalamnya selama-lamanya. Mereka kekal di dalamnya. Itulah kemenangan yang besar.” (Surah at-Taubah, 9: 100)<br /><br />7- Umat Islam Terlalu Mengejar Urusan Dunia Dan Takutkan Kematian,<br /><br />“Hampir-hampir orang-orang kafir ini mengerumuni kamu sebagaimana orang yang lapar mengerumuni hidangannya.” Lalu mereka bertanya: “Adakah jumlah kita pada waktu itu sedikit?” Beliau Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam menjawab: “Tidak, bahkan jumlahmu ramai sekali. Akan tetapi, kamu seperti buih di atas air. Sungguh Allah akan mencabut perasaan takut di hati musuhmu terhadap kamu, dan sungguh Allah akan menghembuskan rasa wahn (lemah) di hatimu.” Lalu mereka bertanya: “Wahai Rasulullah! Apa itu wahn?” Beliau Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam menjawab: “Cinta kepada dunia dan takut mati.” (Hadis Riwayat Abu Daud, 11/371, disahihkan oleh al-Albani dalam al-Misykah, no. 5369)<br /><br />Perkara ini banyak berlaku pada zaman ini. Ramainya umat Islam berusaha bersungguh-sungguh menimbun kekayaan di dunia dan membina kemewahan hidup dengan harta, rumah besar, kenderaan besar, pakaian berjenama, dan seumpamanya. Namun sayangnya, mereka meninggalkan kewajiban yang sebenar di mana mereka tidak menitik-beratkan permasalahan agama untuk diri-diri mereka. Mereka meremehkan solat, tidak mengeluarkan zakat, meninggalkan kewajiban menuntut ilmu-ilmu agama yang ternyata sangat penting, tetapi mereka sibuk mengejar pangkat dan kemewahan hidup dunia.<br /><br />8 – Ramainya Umat Islam Yang Mengikuti Pemimpin Yang Menyesatkan,<br /><br />Dari Tsauban radhiyallahu ‘anhu, Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam bersabda:<br /><br />“Dan sesungguhnya aku bimbang apabila pada umatku ini muncul para pemimpin yang menyesatkan.” (Hadis Riwayat Abu Daud, 11/322)<br /><br />Hudzaifah Ibnul Yaman bertanya kepada Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam: “Adakah setelah datang masa yang baik ini akan datang yang buruk?”<br /><br />Beliau Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam menjawab:<br /><br />“Ya, para da’i (pendakwah) yang mengajak manusia ke Neraka Jahannam. Sesiapa yang mengikuti mereka, pasti dia masuk ke dalamnya.” Lalu aku bertanya: “Wahai Rasulullah, jelaskan kepada kami siapakah mereka itu?”<br /><br />Beliau Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam menjelaskan:<br /><br />“Mereka itu kaum kami dan berbicara dengan bahasa dan agama kami.” (Hadis Riwayat al-Bukhari, 11/439)<br /><br />Ini dapat kita perhatikan sebagaimana berkembangnya fahaman-fahaman yang menyesatkan di dalam kalangan umat Islam pada hari ini. Iaitu dengan munculnya kelompok-kelompok tertentu yang begitu banyak dengan setiap kelompok menobatkan tokoh-tokoh mereka masing-masing sebagai ulama dan pemimpin yang wajib diikuti. Pemimpin-pemimpin setiap kelompok menyeru kepada kelompok dan fahaman mereka masing-masing.<br /><br />Sebagai contoh, pada zaman ini munculnya tokoh-tokoh yang lahir dari kelompok Islam liberal, feminisme, hizbiyun, parti-parti politik yang mempergunakan agama, pejuang khilafah yang menolak hadis ahad dalam persoalan aqidah, tokoh-tokoh penyeru yang mengajak memperbanyakkan amalan namun tanpa memperdalami ilmu yang sahih, kelompok Qur’aniyun (anti hadis), al-Ahbash (takfiri/pengkafir/pencaci ulama), golongan pejuang hudud tanpa memperjuangkan aqidah, tokoh-tokoh yang menggunakan sihir atas alasan perubatan, tokoh-tokoh sufi yang mempercayai mimpi sebagai dasar syari’at, dan pelbagai lagi lainnya yang mana jika diukur dengan neraca yang benar pasti akan jelas kebatilan fahaman yang mereka bawa.<br /><br />9 – Mencipta Perkara-perkara Baru Di Dalam Beragama Dan Meninggalkan Sunnah-sunnah Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam,<br /><br />Daripada al-‘Irbadh bin Sariyah, Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam berpesan,<br /><br />“Aku wasiatkan kepada kamu semua supaya selalu mendengar dan taat walaupun yang memimpin kamu adalah seorang budak hitam (Habsyi). Kerana sesungguhnya, sesiapa yang masih hidup (sepeninggalanku) nescaya dia akan melihat banyak perselisihan berlaku. Oleh itu, hendaklah kamu semua berpegang teguh dengan Sunnahku dan sunnah Khulafa al-Rasyidin yang mendapat petunjuk. Gigitlah sunnah tersebut dengan gigi geraham. Jauhilah perkara-perkara baru dalam urusan agama (bid’ah), kerana setiap perkara baru di dalam agama itu adalah sesat.” (Hadis Riwayat Abu Daud, no. 3851)<br /><br />Pada ketika ini, begitu banyak sekali bentuk-bentuk amalan yang pada hakikat sebenarnya bukanlah berasal dari apa yang ditunjukkan oleh Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam. Tetapi, kebanyakan masyarakat Islam pada hari ini tidak langsung menyedarinya disebabkan kurangnya kefahaman terhadap agama yang mereka pegang lantaran jauhnya mereka dari budaya ilmu yang sahih.<br /><br />Di antara bentuk-bentuk amalan tersebut adalah seperti mengadakan syi’ar perayaan pada tarikh-tarikh tertentu sepeti maulid nabi, awal muharram (mengadakan sambutan-sambutan khas), atau seumpamanya yang mana tidak pernah dikenali sebelumnya dan tidak datang dari Nabi Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam mahu pun para sahabat radhiyallahu ‘anhum. Mengadakan majlis tahlilan, majlis yasinan dari rumah ke rumah pada malam-malam tertentu, melaungkan azan sempena menjelangnya tahun baru hijrah, mempercayai bulan safar sebagai bulan pembawa sial, mengadakan majlis berzanji marhaban di setiap hari raya aidilfitri, berdoa di atas kuburan yang dianggap sebagai kuburan para wali, dan menjadikan ayat-ayat al-Qur’an serta zikir-zikir sebagai bahan nyanyian.<br /><br />Perbuatan mereka-cipta dan mengamalkan sesuatu bentuk amalan ibadah seperti ini yang mana tidak pernah diajarkan oleh Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam adalah menyamai dan menyerupai (tasyabbuh) kepada perbuatan kaum Yahudi dan Nashara. Di mana mereka menokok-tambah dan mengubah-suai kandungan kitab-kitab mereka serta mengadakan amalan-amalan yang baru yang tidak pernah ditetapkan oleh Allah melalui Nabi-nabi mereka.<br /><br />Sebagai contoh, di dalam agama Kristian (Nashara), mereka mewujudkan suatu bentuk perayaan bagi meraikan pengorbanan dan kelahiran jesus (Isa) dengan mencipta sebuah perayaan dinamakan sebagai Chrismas (hari natal). Sedangkan perkara ini tidak pernah pun diajarkan di dalam kitab-kitab mereka dan Nabi Isa ‘alaihis Salam sendiri. Begitu juga dengan perbuatan sebahagian mazhab (aliran) di dalam agama Kristian, di mana mereka menyanyi di dalam gereja-gereja mereka pada waktu-waktu tertentu. Sedangkan perkara ini tidak pernah wujud sebelumnya di dalam ajaran mereka. Ini menunjukkan mereka telah mengubah-suai bentuk dan cara-cara untuk beragama (beribadah) mengikut hawa nafsu mereka sendiri.<br /><br />Begitu juga di dalam agama hindu, terdapat sebuah perayaan yang dikenali sebagai Thaipusam. Yang mana jika dikaji selidik dari sumber-sumber agama mereka yang asal, bentuk perayaan Thaipusam ini tidak pernah ada. Maka, ia adalah merupakan suatu yang baru bagi mereka yang beragama hindu.<br /><br />Persoalannya, adakah Islam juga mesti mengalami evolusi dan pengubahsuaian mengikuti rentak golongan agamawan agama yang lain?<br /><br />Hakikatnya, bentuk-bentuk amalan baru seperti tersebut adalah termasuk ke dalam perbuatan menghina apa yang telah ditetapkan oleh al-Qur’an al-Karim yang merupakan kalamullah yang disampaikan melalui Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam. Perbuatan mereka ini menunjukkan bahawa mereka tidak pernah merasa puas dengan apa yang telah ditetapkan oleh Allah dan apa yang telah disampaikan oleh Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam. Bahkan mereka telah mendahului Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam yang merupakan manusia yang dipertanggungjawabkan menyampaikan agama ini dengan benar lagi amanah. Seakan-akan mereka adalah merupakan kelompok nabi-nabi baru yang membawa syari’at-syari’at baru bertujuan menokok-tambah kekurangan di dalam agama yang sebenarnya telah sedia sempurna disampaikan oleh Muhammad Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam.<br /><br />Iman Yang Sahih Dan Beramal Dengan Amalan Soleh Sebagai Formula Umat Islam Meraih Kemuliaan Dan Menuju Kebangkitan Semula<br /><br />Iman yang sahih yang dimaksudkan di sini adalah merujuk kepada pemurnian aqidah (i’tiqad), membersihkannya dari segala bentuk kesyirikan terhadap Allah, dan melaksanakan ibadah semata-mata kerana Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala berdasarkan (bertepatan) dengan apa yang telah ditetapkan melalui dalil-dalil yang sahih. (Sila rujuk perbahasan berkenaan Tauhid Rububiyyah, Tauhid Uluhiyyah, al-asma’ was Shifat dan yang berkaitan dengannya. Rujuk juga artikel: “Menuju Kesempurnaan Dalam Beribadah”).<br /><br />Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala berfirman (maksudnya):<br /><br />“Dan Allah telah berjanji kepada orang-orang yang beriman dan mengerjakan amal-amal yang soleh di antara kamu bahawa Dia benar-benar akan menjadikan mereka berkuasa di muka bumi, sebagaimana Dia telah menjadikan orang-orang sebelum mereka berkuasa, dan benar-benar Dia akan meneguhkan bagi mereka agama yang telah diredhai-Nya untuk mereka, dan Dia benar-benar akan menukar (keadaan) mereka, setelah (sebelumnya) mereka dalam ketakutan menjadi aman sentosa. Mereka tetap beribadah kepada-Ku dengan tiada mempersekutukan sesuatu apa pun dengan Aku. Dan sesiapa yang (tetap) kafir sesudah (janji) itu, maka mereka itulah orang-orang yang fasiq.” (Surah an-Nur, 24: 55)<br /><br />Syaikh Abdurrahman bin Nashir as-Sa’di rahimahullah berkata:<br /><br />“Ini adalah janji Allah yang benar. Ia telah terbukti sebelumnya, di mana Allah menjanjikan kepada mereka yang beriman dan beramal soleh dari kalangan umat ini menjadi khalifah (pentadbir/penguasa) di permukaan bumi, mereka yang berhak mengatur negerinya. Allah mengukuhkan agama yang diredhai-Nya, (iaitu) agama Islam ini, melebihi agama-agama yang lain kerana keutamaan, kemuliaan, dan kenikmatan di dalamnya. Umat ini berupaya melaksanakan dan menegakkan syari’at Islam secara zahir dan batin sama ada untuk peribadi mahu pun masyarakat. Dengan faktor inilah, umat manusia dari agama lain iaitu semua orang kafir tewas dan menjadi hina. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala telah menghilangkan ketakutan umat ini yang sebelumnya merasa takut untuk menampakkan (menzahirkan) agamanya disebabkan gangguan orang-orang kafir dan jumlah mereka yang masih sedikit. Allah menjanjikan kenikmatan ini pada ketika diturunkan ayat, sehingga kepimpinan di permukaan bumi ini dipegang oleh umat Islam dan tertegaknya syari’at Islam. Negeri pun menjadi aman dan hanya Allah yang diibadahi. Lenyaplah orang yang melakukan kesyirikan. Tidak ada satu pun yang ditakuti selain Allah. Maka berdirinya umat ini adalah di atas dasar iman dan amalnya yang soleh sehingga mereka memiliki darjat (kedudukan) yang tinggi yang tidak diraih oleh umat sebelumnya. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala menjadikan negeri ini aman dan penduduknya ahli ibadah. Seterusnya, negara-negara barat dan timur dikuasai oleh kaum muslimin dan menjadi negara Islam. Negeri menjadi aman dan agama Islam ditegakkan. Ini semua adalah tanda kekuasaan Allah yang sangat menakjubkan. Jika umat ini beriman dan beramal soleh maka janji Allah pasti akan ditunaikan. Akan tetapi, umat ini dikuasai oleh orang kafir dan orang munafik kerana mereka tidak memahami (menghayati) dan mengamalkan dua perkara ini.” (Tafsir al-Karimur Rahman, 1/573)<br /><br />Imam Ibnu katsir rahimahullah turut menjelaskan, dengan katanya:<br /><br />“Dari sini kita berupaya mengetahui dan menilai akan kebenaran janji Allah dan Rasul-Nya. Maha Benar Allah dan Rasul-Nya. Kita memohon kepada Allah supaya Dia selalu melimpahkan kepada kita keimanan kepada Allah dan Rasul-Nya serta kekuatan untuk mensyukurinya bersesuaian dengan apa yang diredhai-Nya.<br /><br />Ar-Rabi’ bin Anas telah meriwayatkan sebuah hadis yang bersumber dari Abul ‘Aliyah ketika menafsirkan firman Allah tersebut, ia berkata,<br /><br />“Rasulullah Shalallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam dan para sahabatnya tinggal di Makkah sekitar sepuluh tahun. Mereka berdakwah, menyerukan untuk beribadah kepada Allah dan menyembah Sang Khaliq Yang Maha Esa, tidak ada sekutu bagi-Nya. Dakwah yang dilaksanakan bersifat rahsia dan secara senyap-senyap. Mereka tidak berani bertindak lebih dari itu, kerana pada ketika itu, masih belum ada perintah untuk berperang. Perintah keluar berperang hanya muncul sekitar selepas mereka berhijrah ke Madinah.<br /><br />Pada awalnya mereka merasa takut, sama ada di waktu pagi atau pun di petang hari. Mereka selalu sentiasa bersiap sedia dengan senjata. Mereka berada dalam keadaan seperti itu sehingga ke waktu yang dikehendaki oleh Allah... ...Dan Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala pun menurunkan ayat tersebut (an-Nuur, 24: 55).<br /><br />Allah menjadikan Nabi-Nya mampu menguasai Jazirah arab, sehingga mereka pun merasa aman dan tidak lagi sentiasa dalam keadaan berjaga-jaga (ketakutan). Kemudian setelah Allah mewafatkan Nabi-Nya, mereka tetap merasa aman di bawah pemerintahan Abu Bakar, Umar dan Ustman...” (Rujuk: Shahih Tafsir Ibnu Katsir, Terbitan Pustaka Ibnu katsir, jil. 6, m/s. 431-432)<br /><br />Beliau juga menjelaskan,<br /><br />Adalah para Sahabat, kerana mereka merupakan kelompok (komuniti) manusia yang paling mentaati perintah Allah setelah Nabi wafat, maka kejayaan yang mereka perolehi itu adalah bersesuaian dengan (keikhlasan) mereka di dalam menegakkan kalimatullah di penjuru bumi di bahagian timur mahu pun barat. Oleh kerana itu, Allah memperkuatkan (memperkukuhkan) kejayaan mereka sekuat-kuatnya sehingga mereka berupaya menakluki pelbagai negeri lainnya dan menjadi penguasa penduduk negeri yang mereka takluki. Namun ketika umat Islam telah mula lalai dalam menjalani ketaatan kepada Allah, maka menjadi pudarlah kejayaan umat Islam. (Rujuk: Shahih Tafsir Ibnu Katsir, Terbitan Pustaka Ibnu katsir, jil. 6, m/s. 436-437)<br /><br />Dengan dua penjelasan ini, menjelaskan kepada kita bahawa ayat di atas menggambarkan keutamaan orang yang berpegang kepada syari’at Islam yang dibawa oleh Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam di mana apabila ianya terbina dengan iman dan amal-amal yang soleh. Dengan dasar pembinaan agama di atas paksi keimanan yang betul dan amal-amal yang soleh tersebut, Allah menjanjikan kepada umat Islam pelbagai kemuliaan, yang di antaranya:<br /><br />1 - Menjadi pemimpin dan penguasa di permukaan bumi,<br /><br />Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala berfirman (maksudnya):<br /><br />“Dan Allah telah berjanji kepada orang-orang yang beriman dan mengerjakan amal-amal yang soleh di antara kamu bahawa Dia benar-benar akan menjadikan mereka berkuasa di muka bumi, sebagaimana Dia telah menjadikan orang-orang sebelum mereka berkuasa, dan benar-benar Dia akan meneguhkan bagi mereka agama yang telah diredhai-Nya untuk mereka, dan Dia benar-benar akan menukar (keadaan) mereka, setelah (sebelumnya) mereka dalam ketakutan menjadi aman sentosa. Mereka tetap beribadah kepada-Ku dengan tiada mempersekutukan sesuatu apa pun dengan Aku. Dan sesiapa yang (tetap) kafir sesudah (janji) itu, maka mereka itulah orang-orang yang fasiq.” (Surah an-Nur, 24: 55)<br /><br />Ibnu Katsir berkata: “Adh-Dhohak berkata: ‘Ayat ini menjelaskan penetapan khalifah Abu Bakar, Umar, Utsman, dan Ali radhiyallahu ‘anhum bahawa mereka itu orang yang beriman dan beramal soleh.” (Tafsir al-Qurthubi, 12/297)<br /><br />2 - Islam akan ditegakkan dan umatnya mendapat kehidupan yang baik,<br /><br />Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala berfirman (maksudnya):<br /><br />“Sesiapa yang mengerjakan amal soleh, sama ada lelaki atau pun perempuan dalam keadaan beriman, maka sesungguhnya akan Kami berikan kepadanya kehidupan yang baik dan sesungguhnya akan Kami beri balasan kepada mereka dengan pahala yang lebih baik dari apa yang telah mereka usahakan.” (Surah an-Nahl, 16: 97)<br /><br />3 - Dijamin dengan hidup yang aman serta hilang rasa takut dan kebimbangan,<br /><br />“Sesiapa sahaja (di antara mereka) yang benar-benar soleh, maka tidak ada kebimbangan terhadap mereka dan tidak (pula) mereka bersedih hati.” (Surah al-Ma’idah, 5: 69)<br /><br />4 – Terhindar dari ancaman kehidupan yang sempit,<br /><br />“Dan barang siapa berpaling dari peringatan-Ku, maka sesungguhnya baginya kehidupan yang sempit....” (Surah Thoha, 20: 124)<br /><br />5 – Rezeki/berkah dari langit dan bumi,<br /><br />“Jika sekiranya penduduk negeri-negeri itu beriman dan bertaqwa, pastilah Kami akan melimpahkan kepada mereka berkah dari langit dan bumi....” (Surah al-A’raf, 7: 96)<br /><br />6 - Dimudahkan segala urusannya,<br /><br />“Sesiapa bertaqwa kepada Allah niscaya Dia akan mengadakan baginya jalan keluar. Dan memberinya rezeki dari arah yang tidak disangka-sangkanya. Dan sesiapa yang bertawakkal kepada Allah niscaya Allah akan mencukupkan (keperluan)nya. Sesungguhnya Allah melaksanakan urusan yang (dikehendaki)-Nya. Sesungguhnya Allah telah mengadakan ketentuan bagi setiap sesuatu.”. (Surah ath-Thalaq, 65: 2-3)<br /><br />Solusi (Penyelesaian) Dalam Meraih Kejayaan (Kemuliaan)<br /><br />1 – Dengan iman dan ilmu,<br /><br />“... niscaya Allah akan meninggikan orang-orang yang beriman di antaramu dan orang-orang yang diberi ilmu pengetahuan beberapa darjat.” (Surah al-Mujadilah, 58: 11)<br /><br />Rasulullah mengkhabarkan bahawa umat Islam yang berpegang kepada sunnahnya pasti akan berjaya.<br /><br />2 – Beribadah Dengan Ikhlas,<br /><br />Ubay bin Ka’ab radhiyallahu ‘anhu berkata: Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam bersabda:<br /><br />“Gembirakanlah umat ini dengan kedudukannya yang tinggi, mulia, dengan agama Islam, dengan kemenangan dan menjadi khalifah di permukaan bumi. Sesiapa beribadah untuk mencari kenikmatan dunia, maka dia tidak akan mendapatkan kebahagiaan di akhirat.” (Hadis Riwayat Ahmad, 20273. Lihat Shahih at-Targhib wat-Tarhib, 2/57)<br /><br />3 – Menegakkan agama Allah dan mengamalkan (merasa cukup) dengan apa yang Allah tetapkan,<br /><br />“Wahai orang-orang yang beriman, jika kamu menolong (agama) Allah, nescaya Dia akan menolongmu dan meneguhkan kedudukanmu. Dan orang-orang yang kafir, maka kecelakaanlah bagi mereka dan Allah menyesatkan amal-amal mereka. Yang demikian itu adalah kerana sesungguhnya mereka benci kepada apa yang diturunkan Allah (al-Quran) lalu Allah menghapuskan (pahala-pahala) amal-amal mereka.” (Surah Muhammad, 47: 7-9)<br /><br />4 – Bersatu di atas jalan kebenaran,<br /><br />“Dan berpeganglah kamu semuanya kepada tali (agama) Allah, dan janganlah kamu bercerai berai” (Surah Ali Imran, 3: 103)<br /><br />“Dan barangsiapa yang menentang Rasul sesudah jelas kebenaran baginya, dan mengikuti jalan yang bukan jalan orang-orang mukmin, Kami biarkan ia leluasa terhadap kesesatan yang telah dikuasainya itu dan Kami masukkan ia ke dalam Jahannam, dan Jahannam itu seburuk-buruk tempat kembali.” (Surah an-Nisa’, 4: 115)<br /><br />5 – Menjauhi perbuatan syirik,<br /><br />“Orang-orang yang beriman dan tidak mencampur-adukkan iman mereka dengan kezaliman (syirik), mereka itulah orang-orang yang mendapat keamanan dan mereka itu adalah orang-orang yang mendapat petunjuk.” (Surah al-An’am, 61: 82)<br /><br />6 – Melazimi kesabaran,<br /><br />Yang terakhir, untuk menuju kepada kejayaan Islam, untuk menempuh semua jalan di atas, wajib disertai dengan kesungguhan dan kesabaran. Kita tidak boleh tergesa-gesa dan berputus-asa, kerana apabila kita hendak menempuh jalan di atas pasti terdapat pembagai halangan, ujian, mahu pun fitnah.<br /><br />Syaikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz rahimahullah berkata:<br /><br />“Tidaklah diragukan bahawa umat ini diuji oleh Allah dengan musuh-musuhnya, sebagaimana disebut di dalam surat Muhammad, 47: 31:<br /><br />“Dan sesungguhnya Kami benar-benar akan menguji kamu agar Kami mengetahui orang-orang yang berjihad dan bersabar di antara kamu, dan agar Kami menyatakan (baik buruknya) hal ehwalmu.”<br /><br />Umat diuji dengan dihadapkan kepada musuh-musuhnya, maka hendaklah bersabar, kerana Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala berfirman:<br /><br />“Kamu benar-benar akan diuji dengan hartamu dan dirimu. Dan (juga) kamu benar-benar akan mendengar dari orang-orang yang diberi kitab sebelum kamu dan dari orang-orang yang mempersekutukan Allah, gangguan yang banyak yang menyakitkan hati. Jika kamu bersabar dan bertaqwa maka sesungguhnya yang demikian itu termasuk urusan yang patut diutamakan. (Surah Ali Imran, 31: 186)<br /><br />Umat Islam wajib bersabar dan mencari pahala, wajib istiqomah di atas agama yang haq (benar) ini, hendaklah dia tidak bersedih hati mendengar ancaman musuhnya, hendaklah menghukumi manusia dengan hukum Allah. Inilah yang wajib dilaksanakan untuk semua negara Islam, sama ada pemimpin mahu pun rakyatnya. Bila sahaja manusia bersedia dengan beristiqomah di atas agama yang benar di dalam setiap perkataan, perbuatan, dan keyakinannya, maka tidak akan ada yang membahayakan bagi umat ini teriakan musuh dan penipunya.<br /><br />Jika kamu bersabar dan bertaqwa, nescaya tipu-daya mereka sedikit pun tidak mendatangkan kemudharatan kepadamu. Sesungguhnya Allah mengetahui segala apa yang mereka kerjakan. (Surah Ali Imran, 31: 120).” (Majmu’ Fatawa wa Maqolat Ibnu Baz, 8/171)<br /><br />Wallahu a’lam...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-40199614617996570762009-02-10T09:43:00.001+03:002009-02-10T09:48:07.649+03:00Tajdid Iman: Cetek agama punca penulisan anti-MuslimOleh: Dr. Juanda Jaya<br />Sumber: http://www.bharian.com.my/<br /><br />Tajdid Iman: Cetek agama punca penulisan anti-Muslim<br /><br />BERDOA dan berwirid mendekatkan hubungan insan dengan Allah, sekali gus mengelakkan penulisan persenda Islam.<br /><br />Penulis jahil sering salah guna blog, internet untuk persenda kemuliaan ajaran Islam<br /><br />LAUNGAN slogan kembali kepada Islam menimbulkan reaksi pelbagai lapisan masyarakat. Ada bersikap prejudis penuh kecurigaan dan menganggap sebagai seruan kembali kepada kemunduran, semua serba haram dan bayangan kerumitan dalam melaksanakan nilai ajarannya.<br /><br />Wujud juga golongan mahu mengambil kesempatan terhadap Islam, mereka mengambil semangat Islam untuk kepentingan peribadi. Ada pula golongan yang Islamnya hanya kulit, mereka menggunakan Islam pada saat diperlukan untuk mendapat keuntungan duniawi.<br /><br />Sementara inti ajaran Islam yang mengatur seluruh dimensi kehidupan dicampak bagai sampah tidak terpakai. Lalu, bagaimanakah sikap seorang Muslim ketika menyahut seruan ini?<br /><br />Sudahkah dikaji keaslian Islamnya bersih daripada penyelewengan akibat percampuran fahaman buatan manusia seperti kapitalisme, sosialisme, nasionalisme, liberalisme, hedonisme dan pelbagai isme lainnya.<br /><br />Apakah Islam yang dianuti itu bebas sama sekali daripada pengaruh transformasi budaya yang sudah membuka pintu dunia seluas-luasnya? Atau masih digigit dengan gigi geraham peninggalan nenek moyang tanpa usul periksa?<br /><br />Untuk itu, sesiapa yang mahu hidup dalam pimpinan Islam yang benar hendaklah kembali kepada asal. Hanya pendedahan ilmu yang boleh menjawab semua persoalan itu kerana pusaka nabi yang tidak akan hilang ditelan zaman.<br /><br />Pada masa teknologi maklumat yang semuanya serba hebat dan cepat seperti sekarang, muncullah Islam yang terpampang di blog ciptaan manusia. Ramai pula orang Islam yang mencari hidayah Allah dengan belayar di lautan siber tanpa sempadan.<br /><br />Hakikatnya pemikiran dan fahaman dipaparkan dalam blog berkenaan perlu dikaji, diuji dan diperiksa kesahihannya, adakah benar ia tidak menyalahi al-Quran dan hadis Rasulullah SAW. Proses mencari ilmu tidak boleh terlepas daripada amalan membaca, berdialog bersama ulama dan melakukan perbandingan kajian secara bertanggungjawab.<br /><br />Boleh jadi, ajaran sesat sudah menyusup masuk tanpa disedari melalui teknologi maklumat dengan begitu mudah. Sikap menerima dan mengikut secara membuta-tuli tanpa usul periksa dan mencari daripada sumber lain boleh memudaratkan seorang penuntut ilmu.<br /><br />Mencari kebenaran Islam mestilah dipandu oleh ulama yang amanah dengan ilmunya. Jangan pula taksub kepada seseorang dan menolak pandangan ulama lain. Ada kala hujah dinyatakan dalam blog sebegini terlalu miskin ilmu umpama perbualan di kedai kopi dengan memperguna dalil al-Quran dan hadis yang disalah guna, lebih teruk lagi sikap hentam dan caci maki, fitnah dan kebencian mula menjadi aliran dihalalkan dalam blog yang kononnya berlandaskan Islam itu.<br /><br />Islam yang begitukah boleh diharap membangkitkan jiwa umat supaya berjuang memartabatkan agama? Tidak nampak keindahan ketika membaca maklumat yang bertajuk Islam tetapi berisi sumpah seranah tidak bertamadun.<br /><br />Rasulullah SAW bersabda bermaksud: "Setiap Muslim itu bersaudara, maka jangan kamu menganiaya dan menghina saudaramu. Takwa itu ada di sini (me-nunjuk dada tiga kali). Seseorang cukup dianggap jahat apabila ia menghina saudara muslimnya, setiap Muslim diharamkan darah, harta dan kehormatannya." (Hadis riwayat Muslim)<br /><br />Bukankah satu ayat yang ditulis itu akan menjadi saksi bagi penulis pada hari kiamat nanti, adakah dia berkata jujur atau menipu manusia atas nama Allah dan Rasul-Nya? Seperti sabda Baginda SAW bermaksud: "Sesungguhnya kebenaran itu menunjukkan jalan kebaikan dan kebaikan pula memimpin ke syurga. Sesungguhnya seseorang itu bersikap jujur (siddiq) sehingga ditulis di sisi Allah sebagai orang yang siddiq. Sesungguhnya dusta itu menunjukkan kepada jalan kemaksiatan dan maksiat menunjukkan pada neraka. Sesungguhnya seseorang itu berbuat dusta hingga ditulis di sisi Allah sebagai pendusta." (Hadis riwayat al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daud dan al-Tirmizi)<br /><br />Melalui tulisan, seorang penulis boleh membuka mata hati manusia dan menolongnya mencari cahaya Allah di atas jalan yang diredai. Tetapi tidak mustahil dia bertanggungjawab menjerumuskan manusia dengan tulisan ke lembah gelap, penuh kebencian dan membutakan hati.<br /><br />Oleh itu, pencari Islam mesti mengikuti arahan al-Quran dalam mengumpulkan maklumat supaya mereka tidak tersesat dalam pencariannya. Firman Allah bermaksud; "Wahai orang beriman, jika datang kepadamu orang fasik membawa suatu berita, maka periksalah dengan teliti supaya kamu tidak menimpakan suatu musibah kepada suatu kaum tanpa mengetahui keadaan menyebabkan kamu menyesal atas perbuatanmu itu." (Surah al-Hujurat, ayat 6)<br /><br />Penulis mesti bersikap adil dalam memandang suatu isu. Sikap fanatik dengan pandangan sendiri biasanya terbentuk kerana mereka tidak berminat bermuzakarah dan berbincang dengan orang berlainan pendapat dengan mereka.<br /><br />Tertutup pintu musyawarah dan usaha menganalisis kesahihan maklumat antara mereka. Keadaan mereka seperti diceritakan al-Quran bermaksud: "Iaitu orang memecah-belah agama mereka dan mereka menjadi beberapa golongan. Tiap-tiap golongan berasa bangga dengan apa yang ada pada golongan mereka." (Surah al-Rum, ayat 32)<br /><br />Apabila sikap fanatik itu mencapai puncaknya, kadang-kadang mereka berdusta atas nama Rasulullah SAW untuk menguatkan hujah mereka tanpa takut lagi atas ancaman neraka. Sabda Rasulullah SAW bermaksud: "Sesiapa yang berdusta ke atasku secara sengaja dia sudah menempah tempatnya dalam neraka." (Hadis riwayat al-Bukhari dan Muslim)<br /><br />Di manakah kedudukan ilmu jika hati mereka dipenuhi kebencian dan permusuhan. Keadaan sebegini bukan hanya ditemui di internet bahkan di masjid yang mengadakan majlis ilmu pun dijumpai sikap tak beradab yang semestinya dikawal oleh seorang penuntut ilmu.<br /><br />Tidakkah mereka melihat keagungan Al-Imam Al-Syafi'ie yang mencari ilmu daripada pelbagai sumber dan manhaj. Beliau bersedia menerima pandangan guru mempunyai manhaj dan kaedah berlainan.<br /><br />Beliau pernah berguru dengan Imam Malik, bahkan pernah dikatakan berguru pada guru berfahaman Muktazilah dalam menzahirkan ilmu kalam tetapi tidak pernah mengakui bahawa beliau termasuk daripada golongan Muktazilah. Sesungguhnya penyelewengan di atas jalan ilmu terjadi apabila matlamat akhir dalam mencari ilmu itu berada pada puncak kepuasan hawa nafsu.<br /><br />Penulis dan pembaca blog yang bernafaskan Islam akan mendapatkan faedah dan ganjaran serta keluasan ilmu daripada aktiviti mereka jika mereka mengamalkan adab yang dituntut al-Quran dan hadis kepada seorang pencari hidayah antaranya:<br /><br />* Meletakkan sumber utama bagi setiap pandangan berasaskan al-Quran dan hadis.<br /><br />* Berbuat adil dan menghormati kewibawaan, ketokohan dan pandangan orang lain walaupun bertentangan dengan pendapat peribadi seperti seruan Al-Quran bermaksud: "Jangan sekali-kali kebencianmu terhadap sesuatu kaum, mendorong kamu untuk berlaku tidak adil. Berlaku adillah, kerana adil itu lebih dekat kepada takwa dan bertakwalah kepada Allah. Sesungguhnya Allah Maha mengetahui apa yang kamu kerjakan." (Surah al-Maidah, ayat 8)<br /><br />* Tidak terikat dengan taklid buta dan semangat asabiyah yang memandulkan kajian ilmiah.<br /><br />* Ikhlaskan niat, bersihkan hati dan meletakkan matlamat mencari ilmu untuk mendekatkan diri kepada Allah, mengenal kelemahan diri dan memperbaiki hubungan sesama manusia.<br /><br />* Sentiasa mengemaskini maklumat dan menganalisis semula maklumat dengan melakukan ujian dan pemeriksaan berterusan terhadapnya serta bersedia berubah pandangan jika menepati al-Quran dan al-Sunnah.<br /><br />Penulis ialah pendakwah dari Sarawak dan boleh dihubungi melalui Juanda@msu.edu.myUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194184274435540195.post-25349439070095417492009-02-10T09:39:00.000+03:002009-02-10T09:41:43.555+03:00Pandangan Dr Asri Tentang Isu Semasa Di PerakOleh: Dr. Muhammad Asri Zainul Abidin<br />Sumber: http://drmaza.com<br /><br />Banyak sekali email isu pergelutan kuasa politik di Perak dihantar kepada saya. Maaf, saya tidak dapat memberikan jawapan yang mencukupi kerana barangkali maklumat yang meyakinkan saya belum mantap. Saya pada prinsipnya tidak dapat menerima perangai ‘lompat parti’ kerana itu adalah sikap yang tidak telus dan jujur terhadap undi rakyat. Sesiapa mahu tukar parti setelah dipilih, sepatutnya meletak jawatan dan bertanding semula. Serahkan semula amanah tersebut kepada rakyat. Rakyat ketika mengundi meluahkan hasrat mereka, dan itu tidak boleh diubah sewenang-wenangnya. Cuma ada beberapa perkara yang berlegar dalam fikiran saya tentang keadaan Perak.<br /><br />1. Jika perbuatan melompat itu tidak dapat diterima oleh sesetengah pihak, sepatutnya ketika isu lompat parti pada 16 September 2008 diuar-uarkan sikap yang sama ditunjukkan. Pendirian yang istiqamah atas prinsip itu hendaklah ditunjukkan dalam semua keadaan. Apakah bantahan isu Perak ini memang benar-benar atas prinsip atau semangat kepartian semata?<br /><br />2. Tokoh agama Perak yang terkenal, Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria adalah seorang mufti terkenal, juga tokoh kepercayaan PAS sendiri. Beliau mengepalai upacara membaca doa perlantikan MB baru, YB Datuk Dr Zamry. Adakah kemungkinan beliau telah melihat berbagai aspek isu tersebut, terutama dari segi agama. Maka saya kira mungkin orang PAS patut merujuk kepada Sahibus Samahah DS Harussani terlebih dahulu sebelum membantah keputusan Sultan Perak itu di sudut agama terutamanya. Mungkin ada perkara yang beliau lebih maklum, sebagai ‘orang lama’ Perak. Apatahlagi, beliau selama itu amat diyakini oleh orang PAS sendiri.<br /><br />3. Beberapa pihak menyatakan YB DS Nizar sebenarnya hanyalah ‘boneka DAP’. Saya sendiri diberikan berbagai maklumbalas oleh pihak yang tiada kaitan politik. Kononnya, apa yang dilaksanakan di Perak adalah keputusan mesyuarat exco yang didominasi oleh DAP yang menumpukan kepentingan kepada kaum tertentu. Isu pemberian tanah kepada masyarakat cina umpamanya dibangkitkan. Dakwaan ini bukan sebarangan, sebab pihak Istana Perak sendiri seakan memberi isyarat kerunsingan tentang kedudukan ‘orang Islam’ di Perak. Dakwaan ini perlu dikaji dengan cermat dan teliti tanpa emosi. Apakah benar atau sebaliknya?<br /><br />4. Dari segi kepentingan umat, tanpa mengira parti, kita perlu menilai; manakah kepimpinan Kerajaan Perak yang lebih bermanfaat dan kurang mudarat kepada umat dan rakyat? Manakah pula yang akan membahayakan masa depan umat? Ini perlu dilihat dengan teliti.<br /><br />Maka saya dengan ini menangguhkan dahulu mengulas isu pergelutan politik di Perak, sehingga persoalan-persoalan ini jelas kepada saya. Saya sama seperti orang lain, dari jauh sedang memerhati isu ini.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0