Article

Dr. Zakir Naik: Tolerance Towards Non-Muslims

2006-10-15T11:23:00.000-07:00

Islam extends tolerance to human beings in general, regardless of their religion, race, caste, colour or creed.

Allah (swt) addresses Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the Qur’an:

“We sent you not but as a mercy for all creatures.” (Al-Qur’an 21:107)

One of the aspects of mercy is tolerance, so was Muhammad (pbuh) tolerant to all people. Islam extends tolerance to human beings in general, regardless of their religion, race, caste, colour, creed and sex and sees to it that this quality is instilled in all the followers of Islam.

Most human beings possess the characteristic of being kind to those who are weak, to those who are oppressed. However, very few possess the quality of being kind to their enemies. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) possessed this quality to a surprising degree. History bears witness to this fact.

After the conquest of Makkah, Muslims were in a position to treat the non-Muslims of Makkah with the same ill-treatment they had been receiving from the non-Muslims earlier. These Makkan non-Muslims included those who had plotted for years against Muslims and ultimately had them migrated from Makkah to Madinah. They also included those who had made an economic and social boycott against Muhammad (pbuh) and his tribe for three years, which caused him to live in starvation. They included Wahshi, the murderer of Hamzah (ra), the Prophet’s uncle and also included Hind who had chewed Hamza’s (ra) liver. They included Habar, who had attacked the prophet’s daughter with a spear during her journey from Makkah to Madina, which caused her to die of fatal injuries. What treatment did these non-Muslims receive from the Muslims?

The Prophet (pbuh) asked them: “O people of Quraish! What do you think of the treatment that I am about to accord to you?” They replied: “O noble brother and son of noble brother! We expect nothing but goodness from you”

Upon this he said: “I speak to you in the same words as Yusuf (the Prophet Joseph) spoke unto his brothers: He said: ‘No reproach on you this day’, (Al-Qur’an, 12:92) go your way for you are freed ones.” History has not witnessed since, a better example of tolerance and forgiveness.

Certain critics of Islam allege that Muslims are “Intolerant”. Yes Muslims are intolerant towards injustice, towards oppression, towards tyranny, towards hatred, and towards anti-social elements of society. At the same time, Muslims are tolerant towards kindness, towards love, towards mercy, towards justice and peace. Says Allah in the Qur’an:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error; whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things. (Al-Qur’an 2:256)

Some non-Muslims harbour a misconception that had it not been for intolerance towards non-Muslims and the use of sword against the non-Mulsims, Muslims wouldn’t have had millions of adherents today. An objective and unbiased study of history will lead one to affirm the fact that far from Islam being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam. Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years, if the Muslims wanted they could have forced every non-Muslim to accept Islam at the point of the sword, but they were tolerant. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, i.e. the call for prayers. Muslims were the rulers of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. These Arab Christians are bearing witness that the Muslims were tolerant and did not spread Islam by the sword. Had the Muslims been intolerant, there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian. The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. They had power of being intolerant to the non-Muslims but today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Muslims were tolerant and that they didn’t force their religion at the point of sword.

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, “Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?” Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if it was due to intolerance and the use of sword, “Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?”

The noted historian De Lacy O’Leary responds to this popular myth in the book “Islam at the crossroad” (Page 8):

“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”

(Dr. Zakir Naik is the President of the Mumbai-based Islamic Research Foundation and can be reached at zakir@irf.net)

Source: Islamic Voice

Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly

2006-10-11T05:21:00.000-07:00

Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar

"All Muslims may not be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." This comment , frequently heard after the Mumbai bomb blasts implies that terrorism is a Muslim specialty, if not a monopoly. The facts are very different.

First, there is nothing new about terrorism. In 1881, anarchists killed the Russian Tsar Alexander II and 21 bystanders. In 1901, anarchists killed US President McKinley as well as King Humbert I of Italy.

World War I started in 1914 when anarchists killed Archduke Ferdinand of Austria. These terrorist attacks were not Muslim. Terrorism is generally defined as the killing of civilians for political reasons.

Going by this definition, the British Raj referred to Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad and many other Indian freedom fighters as terrorists. These were Hindu and Sikh rather than Muslim.

Guerrilla fighters from Mao Zedong to Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro killed civilians during their revolutionary campaigns. They too were called terrorists until they triumphed.

Nothing Muslim about them. In Palestine, after World War II, Jewish groups (the Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang) fought for the creation of a Jewish state, bombing hotels and installations and killing civilians.

The British, who then governed Palestine, rightly called these Jewish groups terrorists. Many of these terrorists later became leaders of independent Israel — Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon.

Ironically, these former terrorists then lambasted terrorism, applying this label only to Arabs fighting for the very same nationhood that the Jews had fought for earlier.

In Germany in 1968-92, the Baader-Meinhoff Gang killed dozens, including the head of Treuhand, the German privatisation agency. In Italy, the Red Brigades kidnapped and killed Aldo Moro, former prime minister.

The Japanese Red Army was an Asian version of this. Japan was also the home of Aum Shinrikyo, a Buddhist cult that tried to kill thousands in the Tokyo metro system using nerve gas in 1995.
In Europe, the Irish Republican Army has been a Catholic terrorist organisation for almost a century. Spain and France face a terrorist challenge from ETA, the Basque terrorist organisation.

Africa is ravaged by so much civil war and internal strife that few people even bother to check which groups can be labelled terrorist. They stretch across the continent.

Possibly the most notorious is the Lord's Salvation Army in Uganda, a Christian outfit that uses children as warriors. In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers have long constituted one of the most vicious and formidable terrorist groups in the world.

They were the first to train children as terrorists. They happen to be Hindus. Suicide bombing is widely associated with Muslim Palestinians and Iraqis, but the Tamil Tigers were the first to use this tactic on a large scale.

One such suicide bomber assassinated Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. In India, the militants in Kashmir are Muslim. But they are only one of several militant groups. The Punjab militants, led by Bhindranwale, were Sikhs.

The United Liberation Front of Assam is a Hindu terrorist group that targets Muslims rather than the other way round. Tripura has witnessed the rise and fall of several terrorist groups, and so have Bodo strongholds in Assam.

Christian Mizos mounted an insurrection for decades, and Christian Nagas are still heading militant groups. But most important of all are the Maoist terrorist groups that now exist in no less than 150 out of India's 600 districts.

They have attacked police stations, and killed and razed entire villages that oppose them. These are secular terrorists (like the Baader Meinhof Gang or Red Brigades).

In terms of membership and area controlled, secular terrorists are far ahead of Muslim terrorists. In sum, terrorism is certainly not a Muslim monopoly.

There are or have been terrorist groups among Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and even Buddhists. Secular terrorists (anarchists, Maoists) have been the biggest killers.

Why then is there such a widespread impression that most or all terrorist groups are Muslim? I see two reasons. First, the Indian elite keenly follows the western media, and the West feels under attack from Islamic groups.

Catholic Irish terrorists have killed far more people in Britain than Muslims, yet the subway bombings in London and Madrid are what Europeans remember today.

The Baader Meinhof Gang, IRA and Red Brigades no longer pose much of a threat, but after 9/11 Americans and Europeans fear that they could be hit anywhere anytime. So they focus attention on Islamic militancy.

They pay little notice to other forms of terrorism in Africa, Sri Lanka or India: these pose no threat to the West. Within India, Maoists pose a far greater threat than Muslim militants in 150 districts, one-third of India's area.

But major cities feel threatened only by Muslim groups. So the national elite and media focus overwhelmingly on Muslim terrorism. The elite are hardly aware that this is an elite phenomenon.

Terrorists as vote banks

2006-10-11T05:18:00.000-07:00

Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar
For years I have argued that India needs police-judicial reform more urgently than further economic reform. Virtually nobody with resources is covicted beyond all appeals.

When wrongs are not redressed and the guilty not penalised, basic human rights are violated. Adverse economic consequences follow too. Competition, the bedrock of economic growth, works by rewarding the most productive and penalising the sluggards.

But if the police and courts are moribund, then the winners will be those that can flout the law with impunity, not those with high productivity. Today, an even more important reason for police-judicial reform is the need to combat terrorism and its communal repercussions.

We have recently heard that the verdict in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blast case will be delivered in early August. Imagine, this top-priority case has dragged on for 13 years, despite being heard by a TADA court, with supposedly fast-track procedures!

So, do not mistake arrests by the police of suspects in the latest Mumbai blasts for quick action. This case too may take 13 years. Muslim organisations claim that many arrested in the 1993 case will be found innocent.

But having been locked up for 13 years, they may emerge as ripe terrorist material. Besides, callous politicians now use the police as a political tool.

When chief ministers regularly arrest opposition leaders on charges that never end in convictions, people see the police-judicial process as political theatre rather than a justice system.

This has accelerated the criminalisation of politics. A new, dangerous development is the emergence of terrorists as vote banks. Abdul Nasser Mahdani, chief accused in the 1998 Coimbatore bomb blast, is wooed by both the DMK and the Left Front.

They seek the support of his People's Democratic Party, a Muslim outfit floated by him after his earlier Islamic Sevak Sangh was banned. This will encourage other militant groups.

We have long witnessed criminals being wooed by political parties and given cabinet posts because their muscle and money power fetches crucial votes.

Elections are won and lost on swings of just 1% of the vote, so parties cynically woo every possible vote bank, including those headed by accused robbers and murderers.

Legal delays ensure that the accused will die of old age before being convicted, so parties virtuously insist that these chaps must be regarded as innocent till proved guilty.

This is a sound principle in countries where most criminals are convicted. But it is a licence for murder in a country where nobody with resources gets convicted beyond all appeals.

Having wooed criminals, the logical next step is for political parties to woo terrorist outfits too. These may also command enough votes to swing some constituencies.

Indeed, the more our polity gets communalised, the more terrorists of all stripes will become politically attractive. Why jail a terrorist who can win you the next election?

Keep him on your side, otherwise his followers may switch to the opposition. In Uttar Pradesh, the chief minister has defended SIMI, the banned terrorist Muslim outfit.

One of his ministers, Haji Qureshi, has announced a reward of Rs 51 crore for beheading the Danish cartoonist who portrayed the prophet.

This is incitement to murder and terrorism, yet is fully supported by the chief minister, who needs every possible Muslim vote in next year's state election. Optimists will argue that this was mere rhetoric.

Yet, the day may come when rewards will be offered, openly or covertly, for killing Muslim hate objects like Gujarat chief minister Modi. Politics apart, long legal delays (as in the Mumbai and Coimbatore blast cases) can fuel communal riots.

If the law cannot quickly find and convict individual Muslims who have turned terrorist, then Hindu mobs will increasingly be tempted to seek vengeance against the whole Muslim community.

And Muslim mobs will retaliate. The post-Godhra riots may then look like a tea party. What police-judicial reforms do we need? First, we need an independent Police Commission, along the lines of the Election Commission, with all-India staff to investigate and prosecute crime.

This function must be taken out of the hands of politicians. State governments can have separate forces for maintaining public order, but criminal investigation should be the job of a separate, autonomous police force.

That will help move criminals (and possibly terrorists) out of legislatures and into jails. Second, we need many more judges, and judicial procedures that ensure quick decisions. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Third, we need a law mandating the immediate hearing and disposal of all criminal cases against elected legislators. Today, criminals join politics to delay cases they face.

But if these cases have to be disposed of before all others, criminals will avoid rather than join politics. We might even see some cabinet ministers resigning in panic and going back to crime.

Source Times of India

Rise of do-it-yourself terrorism

2006-10-11T05:11:00.000-07:00

Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar

Five years after 9/11, the main security threat faced by nations is not Al Qaida. It is the growing ability of small groups to inflict levels of damage unprecedented in history, and the growing inability of nations to check it.

Through history, the State has been powerful and individuals weak. But education and technology have now made small groups powerful enough to threaten or decimate the State. This is true of both Islamic and non-Islamic groups: it is trans-religious.

IRA cadres in Ireland and Basque terrorists in Spain and France are Christian terrorists. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are Hindu terrorists who invented suicide bombing.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the JVP in Sri Lank represented Buddhist-Marxist terrorism. The Aum Shinrikyo is a Buddhist cult that in 1995 tried to kill thousands with nerve gas in the Tokyo metro.

Maoists in Nepal represent secular terrorism. So do Indian Maoists who operate in 162 out of 602 districts. Islamic terrorists have plenty of company.

In the US itself, the Unabomber Kaczynski maimed and killed people for 18 years before being caught. The two Oklahoma bombers killed 168 people in 1995. After 9/11, envelopes with anthrax were sent by mail to the Capitol and other places, causing panic in Washington.

The government never detected the perpetrators. A recent US intelligence report has emphasised that danger exists from home-group terrorists that nobody has heard of so far.

In India, the police and media tend to blame Pakistan for every bomb explosion. Yet, it now seems clear that many local Muslim groups (such as SIMI) are taking to violence too. So are Maoist outfits that have mushroomed all over India, especially in tribal areas.

Some have only the most rudimentary arms, yet storm police stations and control significant areas. Small groups can become large and strong in a weak state.

The Afghan government cannot quell the Taliban. In the tribal areas of Waziristan, the Pakistan Army tried to wipe out militants from Afghanistan as well as Central Asia and Chechnya who had sought sanctuary. After years of battle and the loss of 800 soldiers, the army has given up, withdrawn all forces and released militants in custody.

In return, the tribal elders of Waziristan have said they will not give sanctuary to any more foreigners (meaning foreign terrorists). Nobody has any way of enforcing this, nor does the deal do anything about militants already in Waziristan.

Conceivably, powerful states may one day be able to put down large militant outfits like the Taliban in Afghanistan or Chechen rebels in Russia. But this cannot prevent new aggrieved groups from forming constantly and inflicting immense damage.

Through most of history, small groups had only the sword or gun for killing, and so could kill only a few people at a time. But modern technology has given small groups access to mass-killing power.

Instructions on how to assemble a bomb are easily available on the Net. Mixing fertiliser and fuel oil creates deadly bombs that anybody can assemble. Suicide bombing is a low-tech delivery system that is virtually unstoppable.

Deadly explosives like RDX are available globally through sophisticated black markets, sometimes through the internet. So are assault rifles, grenades and rockets.

Cellphones provide communications that only the most sophisticated armies once had. Throw-away cellphones and changing e-mail addresses provide enough anonymity to foil the most sophisticated intelligence agencies.

This enables new militant groups to constantly form with impunity. The new Sunni and Shia militia in Iraq are not the only examples. The London bombers were not Middle Easterners. They were brought up in Britain, spoke with Yorkshire accents, and had no Al Qaida connection.

They easily built deadly bombs. A recent survey showed that almost a quarter of British Muslims felt the bombing was a justified response to British forces in Iraq. So, expect new British Muslim militant groups to form constantly.

The ability of new groups to keep forming and acquiring powers of destruction has aptly been called "do-it-yourself terrorism" by New York historian Faisal Devji.

Do-it-yourself terrorism does not require the support of an enemy State or major terrorist group. It can be done by anybody, and so cannot be checked by going after a Saddam or Osama. It can be checked, if at all, only by winning hearts and minds.

Will this happen? I doubt it. US politicians and media talk constantly of a war on terror, and guns and bombs do not win hearts and minds. Indeed, they can spawn fresh terrorists daily.

The future looks grim. With advancing technology, I expect small groups to become even more powerful, and the State to become even less capable of stopping them. The State will probably respond by acquiring draconian powers and crushing civil liberties.

Private wars between rival groups may spread, with the State a helpless spectator, as in Iraq and Lebanon. That may sound like gross pessimism. But I think it is also realism.

Source Times of India

Opinion: The Shia-Sunni battle for oil

2006-10-04T12:10:00.000-07:00

Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar

Some conspiracy theorists will have you believe that everything in the Middle East is about oil, including the US invasion of Iraq. But the fact is that, three years after the invasion, the Americans have not acquired any Iraqi oilfield.

Yet, in one sense the hundreds of weekly killings in Iraq are indeed about oil. This relates not to the US occupation but the Sunni-Shia struggle for controlling oil.

Iraq's population consists roughly of 60% Shia Arabs, 20% Kurds and 12% Sunni Arabs (the balance being small minorities). Iraq has for centuries been ruled by Sunnis. Democracy has now empowered the Shia majority, and Sunnis fear the consequences.

The biggest oilfields in the country are in the Shia south, and the rest are in the northern Kurdish region. There is no oil in the Sunni triangle in the middle of the country.

The new Constitution of Iraq was long delayed because of heated debates on sharing oil revenue. One constitutional provision says that oil belongs to the people of Iraq in all regions. Yet, the Constitution also gives autonomy to the three regions Shia, Sunni and Kurd. This fuels Sunni fears that the other two regions will ultimately hog all the oil.

You cannot attribute the murderous battles between Sunni and Shia militia to oil alone. The strife is also caused by religious and regional tensions, the Baathist backlash, and the belief of some Sunnis that the Shia-Kurd majority is an American poodle. Yet, overlying all these causes is tension over oil.

The tension is not limited to Iraq: it pervades the whole Gulf. Muslims in the region oppose the US occupation, yet all Arab governments desperately want US troops to stay on. Why?

Because they fear that US withdrawal will encourage Iran to foment Shia insurrections in every Sunni-ruled state in the Gulf. The Shia population is substantial and sometimes dominant along the Gulf shoreline.

The entire shoreline was part of the Persian Sassanid Empire in the 7th century. That is why the body of water was called the Persian Gulf. The Sassanid Empire was Zoroastrian. Soon after, Arab Islam swept through the Middle East.

But it split along Shia-Sunni lines. The Shias dominated Iran, Iraq and some other parts of the Gulf shoreline. The Sunnis controlled most other regions, including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

The Middle East was ruled by the Ottoman Empire from the 13th century onwards. The Empire collapsed after World War I, and the British ushered in the rule of assorted Sunni kings and sheikhs.

Oil transformed the region. Saudi Arabia discovered the biggest oilfields in the world. But 70% of its oil lay in the Shia-majority region on the Gulf shore. This made the Saudi royal family paranoid about the possibility that these Shias, abetted by Iran (and now Iraq), would secede and take the oilfields with them.

Baqir Solagh, former interior minister and now finance minister of Iraq, last year accused Saudi Arabia of violating the civil rights of Shias in its eastern region, and called for justice.

This caused consternation in Riyadh. Shortly after, the minister's brother was kidnapped, and he attributed this to Saudi revenge. Whether true or not, it highlighted how high Sunni-Shia tensions run over oil.

Events in Lebanon have further worried the Saudis. Hezbollah, the Shia party of Lebanon, has gained de facto control of the southern part of the country. It has been armed by Iran and is too powerful for the Lebanese government to disarm.

Hezbollah battled Israel in July and August and was widely seen to have won, simply because it was the first time that Israeli forces failed to win. Hezbollah's rockets killed over 100 Israelis, and it claims to have 20,000 rockets still in reserve.

Hezbollah has become a hero to Muslims throughout the Middle East, even Sunnis. This makes Sunni rulers uneasy. The have long relied on Sunni-Shia antagonism to keep Iranian machinations at bay. But if Iran and Hezbollah attain heroic status among all Muslims in the Gulf, Sunni rulers fear loss of authority, and maybe of their oilfields too.

Many geologists feel that global oil production is close to a historical peak, after which it will decline and send prices spiralling. But one American academic, Amy Jaffe of the Baker Institute, theorises that Saudi Arabia may seek to discomfit Iran by sharply increasing oil production to deliberately cause a price crash.

Saudi Arabia has a huge trade surplus and can shrug off a lower oil price. But a low oil price will convert Iran's trade surplus into a deficit, creating problems for a country already facing international financial and banking curbs.

I personally doubt that Saudi paranoia about Iran will go to this extreme. But the very fact that academics are speculating on the impact of Shia-Sunni tensions on oil shows that the future of oil prices will be decided by geopolitics no less than geology.

Source http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/

Non-Muslims' Right to Protection of Life

2006-05-16T12:24:00.000-07:00

By Dr Zakir Naik

Islam condemns the killing of human beings and provides full protection to the non-Muslims under covenant(the Dhimmis).

Islam teaches that Allah (swt) is the sole Creator, Sustainer and Absolute Master of humanity, the Universe and all creation. He has given all humans honour and dignity. He has breathed into humankind of His own spirit. All humans are born equal and form one universal community.

Every person, irrespective of the country of his or her birth, and irrespective of his or her religious beliefs, has some basic human rights simply because he/she is a human being.

Human beings are a special creation of Allah (swt). Human life is given by Allah (swt) alone, and as such, belongs to Him. None has the right to take human life without any just cause. Human blood is sacred and should not be spilt without justification. Violating this rule is equivalent to killing of the entire humanity.

Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur’an:

“… Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption (done) in the land - it is as if he had slain humankind entirely: and whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.” 1

None has any right by himself to take human life in retaliation or as revenge or for prevention of corruption – this matter has to be decided only by a competent court of law. Thus, it is incumbent on every human being that under no circumstances should he be guilty of taking a human life. These instructions have been repeated in the Glorious Qur’an in another verse:

“And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden (to be killed) except by (legal) right.” 2

In all these verses, the word ‘soul’ (nafs) has been used in general terms, which does not apply to the citizens of any country, or people of a particular race or religion, but it rather applies to all human beings without any distinction.

The Prophet (pbuh) has declared homicide as the greatest sin only next to polytheism. The tradition says: “The greatest sins are to associate something with God and to kill a human being…”3

In an Islamic state, every individual, whether Muslim or Non-Muslim has a right to protection of life and it is the duty of that state to provide security to the people living within its boundaries. The lives of Non-Muslims are equally important as that of Muslims.

The Prophet (pbuh) said, “Whoever killed a Mu’ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of 40 years (of travelling).” 4

The fourth Rightly Guide Caliph, Ali (RA) had said: “They pay Jizyah so that the sanctity of their lives and properties may become like that of ours (i.e. the Muslims).” 5

The Dhimmis (i.e. Non-Muslims under covenant) are given the assurance of protection and support of the Islamic state that includes every aggression from outside and every oppression and tyranny within, so that they may live on a stable basis in perfect peace and tranquility; protection from outside is their right in the same way as that of the Muslims.

Imam Qarani Maliki in his book “Al Farooq” cites the saying of Imam Ibn-e-Hazam Zahiri from his book “Maratib-ul-Ijma”:

“If those at war with us catch hold of some dhimmi and bring him to our country, it will be binding on us to come out and give them (our enemies) a fight with our full might and for the protection of the life of that dhimmi, who has been offered protection by Allah and His Messenger. We should lay down our lives since without that much action, allowing them to do with the dhimmis what they like shall be regarded avoiding the proper discharge of our duty (towards the dhimmis).” 6

All of the above evidences prove that Islam condemns the killing of human beings and provides full protection to the non-Muslims under covenant (i.e. dhimmis); not only from within the Islamic state, but also from any type of attack from outside the state.

A striking example of this principle being put into action can be seen from the concern shown by Ibn Taymiyah (r) to the Jews and the Christians who were dhimmis:

When Syria came under the domination of Tartars, Shaykh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (r) went to their commander Qatlu Shah; for the release of the prisoners of war. Qatlu Shah agreed to the release of Muslim prisoners, but refused to release dhimmis. Shaykh-ul-Islam (r) said that they could not allow Jews and Christians to remain prisoners since they were under the protection and as such their responsibility. “We cannot leave behind any prisoner, Muslim or Non-Muslim”. Qatlu Shah in view of the stern attitude of Ibn Taymiyah (r), set free all of them.

References

1. Surah Al-Maidah 5:32

2. Surah Al-An’aam 6:151

3. Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol.9 Hadith No.6871

4. Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol.9 Hadith No.6914

5. Al-Mughni Vol.13 p.49 & 250

6. Al Farooq Vol.3 p.14-15 n

Source : islamic voice

Terrorism and Jihad: An Islamic Perspective –Part – 5

2006-05-16T12:20:00.000-07:00

By Dr. Zakir Naik

Muslims ruled India for about 1000 years. As a whole, no Muslim ruler forced the non-Muslims in India to accept Islam.

The Truth about Jihad: The Qur’an says in Surah Baqarah Ch. No. 2 V. No. 190:

“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.” [Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190]

The Qur’an says, you can fight those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah (swt), Almighty God, does not like those who transgress. Allah continues in Surah Baqarah Ch. No. 2 V. No. 193:

“Fight them until there is no (more) Fitnah (tumult and oppression) and (until) religion (i.e. worship) is (acknowledged to be) for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression (i.e. assault) except against the oppressors.” [Surah Al-Baqarah 2:193]

If you study Islamic history you will come to know the truth. There is a book written by Prof. Rama Krishna Rao on the Life of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). In it he states that there were about 22 encounters in the life of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in which about one thousand and eighteen human beings were killed.

Compare this to the casualties of World War II, in which ten million civilians were killed and ten million soldiers were killed – twenty million dead – and thirty four million were injured. Imagine the magnitude of human suffering caused by these wars.

One can easily realise the difference between the casualties of these wars. Yet people talk about Islam and state that Islam was spread by the sword and killing is prescribed in Islam. Tell us, who talks about World War I and World War II, and criticizes the nations and its leaders that led to these wars and fought in them?

It is a common misconcep-tion that the religion of Islam was spread by the sword. ‘Islam’ is an Arabic word, which comes from the root words ‘SALM’ which means peace and ‘SILM’ which means submitting your will to Allah, the one and only Almighty God. Hence Islam means peace acquired by submitting your will to Allah (swt). Anyone who submits his/her will to Almighty God to acquire peace is called a Muslim. If you translate ‘Islam was spread by the sword’ it means peace was spread by the sword. Islam propagates spreading and maintaining peace in the world. Its teachings state that as far as possible, an individual or the state should not fight, should not be violent, and should not use the sword – except as a last resort. Islam gives permission that force can be used to eliminate tyranny and oppression and to achieve and sustain peace – to let peace prevail.

Every country in the world, every government in the world, has a police force and the police use force against criminals who try to disrupt peace. We praise the police when it uses force against criminals in order to let peace and justice prevail. Similarly, Islam gives permission to use force only as a last resort, when some people create FITNAH (meaning oppression and injustice) and FASAAD (meaning corruption, mischief, and nuisance) in the world. As Allah says in the Qur’an in Surah Maidah Ch. No. 5, Verse No. 32

“…Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption (done) in the land - it is as if he had slain humankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved humankind entirely.” [Surah Al-Maidah 5:32]

So Allah tells us in the Qur’an that if any human kills any other human, whether it be a Muslim or Non-Muslim, unless it be for murder or for creating mischief in the land or for creating FITNAH or FASAAD in the land, it is as though as if he killed the whole of humanity. (Allah doesn’t say that only if you kill a Muslim, it is as though as if he killed the whole of humanity).

And if anyone saves any other human being, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, it is as though as if he saved the whole of humanity. This is what this glorious Book proclaims, and people allege that it is the source of violence, the source of disruption of peace! Those who wish to continue with and perpetuate their injustice, tyranny, oppression and falsehoods say such a monstrous lie and calumny.

The glorious Qur’an provides guidance on how peace can prevail. Check it out! Obtain a copy of the translation of the Qur’an. Read it. You will be pleasantly surprised. Discover the truth about all these issues by yourself, directly by reading the translation of the Glorious Qur’an.

The Sword of Islam: Was Islam spread by the Sword? Let’s examine this issue.

The best reply to the allegation that Islam was spread by the sword, is given by De Lacy O’Leary, a very famous historian. He writes on page no. 8 of his book ‘Islam at the Crossroads’: “History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”

We Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years and we did not use the sword. Later on the crusaders came and wiped out the Muslims – there was not a single Muslim who could openly give the Adhan. The Muslims did not use the sword.

Muslims ruled India for about 1000 years. The Muslims had the power – they ruled India for about 1000 years. They did not use force. As a whole, no Muslim ruler forced the non-Muslims in India to accept Islam. Today, more than 80% of the Indians are non-Muslims. These 80% non-Muslims in India, are giving Shahaadah – they are bearing witness – that Islam was not spread by the sword. If the Muslims had wanted, they could have forced each and every Indian to accept Islam at the point of the sword. They did not do so.

The Muslims ruled the Arab lands for 1400 years. They were the lords and the rulers of the Arab land for 1400 years. The Britishers and the French came and ruled for a few years. But as a whole, the Muslims have been the rulers of the Arab lands for the past 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians. Coptic Christians means that they are Christians since generations. These more than 14 million Coptic Christians, are giving Shahadah, they are bearing witness that Islam was not spread by the sword.

Indonesia is the country which has the maximum number of Muslims. Let me pose you this question:

Which Muslim army went to Indonesia?

Malaysia has more than 50% of its population as Muslims.

Which Muslim army went to Malaysia?

Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?

Which sword are we talking of?

Thomas Carlyle gives the reply. In his book “Heroes and Hero worship”, he says, “The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one, in one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.”

He is talking about the sword of intellect.

Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an in Surah Nahl:

“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction and argue with them in a way that is best.” [Surah An-Nahl 16:125]

The Qur’an speaks of the sword of intellect which conquers the hearts of human beings. We have to find the correct sword.

An article had appeared in “The Plain Truth” Magazine. It was a reproduction of the Reader’s Digest Almanac year book, 1986. It gave a report of the increase in the major world religions in a span of 50 years, between 1934 to 1984. It stated, ‘In this span of 50 years between 1934 and 1984 the religion that grew the maximum was Islam. It grew by 235%, while Christianity grew by a mere 47%.

Let me once again ask a simple question: which war took place between 1934 and 1984 which forced human beings to accept Islam? Which war?

Today, the fastest growing religion in America and also in Europe is Islam. Who is forcing these Americans at the point of the sword to accept Islam? Who is forcing the Europeans to accept Islam at the point of the sword? Who?

The Truth of Islam shall Prevail

Do you know that after 11th September 2001, the CNN relayed a news item in the month of June 2002 that said that after 11th September 2001 in a span of approximately ten months, 34000 Americans accepted Islam? The more they attack Islam, the more the truth of Islam will prevail.

As Allah says in the Glorious Qur’an: And say, “Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, (by nature), ever bound to depart.” [Surah Al-Isra 17:81]

The more you try and suppress the truth, the more the truth will prevail. Imagine, with all the media that they have at their disposal: the CNN, the BBC, other news channels – and everyone attacking Islam, yet the best seller in America today is the Bible of the Muslims – they don’t even know the Qur’an by its name!

The translation of the Qur’an is the best seller. People want to know what kind of religion Islam is, and when they read the Qur’an, it opens up their hearts. The sword conquers their hearts and they accept Islam.

This is a fulfillment of a promise given by Almighty God in the Qur’an in no less than three different places. Almighty God says in Surah At-Tawbah Chapter No. 9 Verse No. 33 and in Surah As-Saff Chapter No. 61 Verse No. 9:

“It is He who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth to manifest it over all religion, although those who associate others with Allah dislike it.” [Surah At-Tawbah 9:33] and [Surah As-Saff 61:9]

Allah repeats the message for the third time in Surah Al-Fath Chapter No. 48, verse No. 28, where Allah says:

“It is He who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth to manifest it over all religion. And sufficient is Allah as a Witness.” [Surah Al-Fath 48:28]

Allah’s promise is: the more they attack this ‘deen’ of Haq (the truth), the more the truth of Islam will prevail. And you will find that Allah has his own ways of making this happen.

As Allah says in the Qur’an in Surah Al-e-Imran Chapter No. 3 Verse No. 54

“And they (i.e. the disbelievers) planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.” [Surah Al-e-Imran 3:54]

I would like to end this treatise with the following quotation of Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson: “People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realise that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already - it fell the day MUHAMMAD (pbuh) was born.”

(To be concluded)

(The English translation of verses of the Glorious Qur’an is taken from the translation published by Saheeh International.)

(Dr Zakir Naik is the President of the Mumbai-based Islamic Research Foundation and can be reached at zakir@irf.net)

"Hamas has arrived but there are limits to its advance"

2006-04-07T09:29:00.000-07:00

Authors Robert Malley, Hussein Agha

Robert Malley est directeur du Middle East Program de l’International Crisis Group. Il a été l’assistant spécial du président Bill Clinton sur la question israélo-arabe (1998-2001).
Hussein Agha is a member of the St Anthony’s College of Oxford and he has been linked to Israeli-Palestinian relations for over 30 years.

Sources The Guardian (United Kingdom), The Age (Australia), The Boston Globe (United States), International Herald Tribune (France)
Reference «Hamas has arrived - but there are limits to its advance», by Hussein Agha and Robert Malley, The Guardian, January 24, 2006.
« Hamas steps into a complex landscape», Boston Globe, January 24, 2006.
«Hamas at the table», International Herald Tribune, January 25, 2006.
«Hamas changes tack», The Age, January 25, 2006.

Summary There is more uncertainty than clarity surrounding the upcoming Palestinian elections although there is something clear: Hamas, designated a ist organization by the United States and Europe and a mortal enemy of Israel, will be joining the legislature. It is possible that it may win a sizeable portion of votes and, who knows, a seat at the cabinet table.
Hamas’s decision to enter the political realm took long to come but it hardly is a surprise. Unlike Al Fatah, Hamas not only aims at achieving independence through armed struggle and diplomacy but also at transforming the Palestinian society in its social and religious aspects. Hamas began the armed struggle somewhat late, first against Israeli soldiers and settlers and then against civilians. However, on various occasions Hamas offered to stop attacking civilians if Israel did the same. Today, Hamas is enjoying the fruit of the incapacity of the Palestinian Authority to protect their people and the Palestinians’ disillusionment regarding negotiations. The unilateral pullout from Gaza also made them believe that has a more significant impact on the negotiations.
Hamas accepted to temporarily stop its attacks and participated in the municipal elections. We note that, as long as Hamas remains in the opposition, they will be praised for the services rendered, but as soon as they are elected they will be blamed for what is wrong. However, the Islamic movement knows very well that Palestinians’ daily life depends on their relations with Israel. Thus, Hamas’ speech could remain intact but it is also possible that there might be a division between radicals and pragmatists within the organization.

Source: www.voltairenet.org

"Palestinian elections: an ace for peace in the Middle East’

2006-04-07T09:15:00.000-07:00

Author Marwan Bishara

Citoyen israélien arabe, Marwan Bishara est professeur de relations internationales à l’université américaine de Paris. Il est analyste politique pour Abu Dhabi TV. C’est le frère du député à la Knesset, Azmi Bishara.

Sources Le Figaro (France), La Vanguardia (Spain)
Reference «Asunción del poder en Palestina», by Marwan Bishara, La Vanguardia, January 25, 2006.
«Les élections palestiniennes, un atout pour la paix au Proche-Orient», Le Figaro, January 25, 2006.

Summary Today’s legislative elections are a historic event as they will allow creating a more representative National Assembly and helping accelerate the reform of the government and security services. With the participation of 11 nationalist, liberal, Islamic and leftist factions, all political trends will be represented for the first time. Nonetheless, many are worried about the results of Hamas that could affect the lay nature of the Palestinian society.

In Palestine and also in other Middle East countries, humiliating the nationalist lay movement is the same as encouraging the Islamic movement. Sharon’s insistence on humiliating President Abbas and isolating Al Fatah, the party in power, has only helped increase the power of the Islamic Hamas. The alarm of the western and liberal Arab trends for their spectacular progress lacks foundation. In fact, a victory of this organization could abort an already discredited diplomatic process and hamper Palestinian relatively liberal and pluralist policy.
However, according to surveys, Hamas would only win one third of the seats, thus becoming an important opposition party, which could be favourable. If Hamas enters politics, it will be more receptive to popular pressure and to government responsibilities. Thus, the participation and election of Hamas candidates in the municipal elections have not made the adopted policies more extremist. On the contrary, the spokesman of Hamas expressed his party’s willingness to accept the creation of a Palestinian state in accordance with the 1967 borders, a statement very different from their previous insistence on the full liberation of historic Palestine. The participation of Hamas in the government could strengthen the political process in Palestine and would allow for the establishment of healthier negotiations, based on the willingness and the conformity of the majority of the Palestinian people.
President Mahmud Abbas, hostage, on one hand, of the frictions among his security officials and the proliferation of armed groups, and, on the other hand, of the US and Israeli pressures to suppress the militants, needs all the institutional help he can get. A government with wider foundations would be more effective than the current one. The elections are also an ace for the peace process. They can help the spirit of civic responsibility and strengthen the institutional structures that are absolutely indispensable for the future Palestinian state.

Source: www.voltairenet.org/

’Palestinian elections: Let’s not miss the chance again…!’

2006-04-07T09:08:00.000-07:00

Author Saleh Alkallab

Ancien ministre de l’information en Jordanie, Saleh Alkallab est journaliste dans le quotidien Asharqalawsat.

Source Asharqalawsat
Reference «الانتخابات الفلسطينية: حتى لا تضيع الفرصة الجديدة كما ضاعت فرص سابقة..! », by Saleh Alkallab, Asharqalawsat, January 26, 2006.

Summary The elections held yesterday in Palestinian territories will certainly mark the history of militancy of a whole nation. It’s been the greatest event since the amazing return of Abu Amar, «Yasser Arafat», and his men to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1994.

With the exception of the Islamic Jihad, all the elements of Palestine’s political life showed, in a mature way, that Abu Mazen’s people have taken concrete steps in its struggle for liberation.
The last ten years have been painful and could have led Palestinians to miss this historical moment for, above all, Ariel Sharon did his best to weaken its will. From now on, the message to Israeli leaders is that they must recognize the right of this people to have their independent state.
After 20 years in the political life, Hamas realized that it had to change its «aggressive» policy and join the other political actors that wanted a peaceful life. Consequently, the movement will participate from beginning to end in the establishment of the institutions the country needs.
But this movement still refuses to accept that it was forced to change its political line to participate in this elections. A possible victory of Hamas in the elections would allow it to be part of the Legislative Council without refusing to join the Palestinian Authority. If the movement wins, however, it will have no choice but to adopt the same policy of its predecessor, Al Fatah. In case a national union government could not be formed, the least to be done would be the promotion of a climate of cooperation and, above all, respect between the government and the future opposition.

Source: www.voltairenet.org

"Two electoral campaigns"

2006-04-07T09:03:00.000-07:00

Author Yossi Beilin

Yossi Beilin est ancien ministre de la justice israélien et l’un des principaux négociateurs des accords de Genève. Dissident du parti travailliste israélien, il est président du parti Yahad.

Source La Vanguardia (Spain)
Reference «Dos campañas electorales», by Yossi Beilin, La Vanguardia, January 22, 2006.

Summary The election of the Palestinian Legislative Council will take place next Wednesday, January 25. Obviously, they’ll have an influence on the orientation of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas participation in this election is an unprecedented situation. If a secular coalition takes power, Israel could be invited to start political negotiations. However, a strong Hamas could reject all negotiations and strengthen all those who prefer partial and unilateral initiatives in Israel. Whatever the result is, Palestinian elections will have a strong impact on Israeli elections which will be held within two months.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud opposes a new withdrawal, Kadima prefers unilateral withdrawals, the left wants negotiations and the Labourites are against the division of Jerusalem and have not supported the Geneva initiative. With regard to this, Amir Peretz’s victory as the head of the Labour Party is a refreshing element, although some members of the party left it and joined Kadima.
This party wants to represent the centre, something that has never worked well in Israel. Nonetheless, it’s very popular because of Ariel Sharon’s hospitalization. Whatever the result is, Kadima won’t be able to rule alone. It will have to look for alliances with the right or the Labourites. The orientation of the coalition will depend on the result of the Palestinian elections.

Source: http://www.voltairenet.org

"The Palestinian democratic election"

2006-04-07T08:59:00.000-07:00

Author Abdel Bari Atouan

Abdel Bari Atouan was editor in chief of the Asharq Alaousat newspaper from 1984 to 1988, then he became editor in chief of the Palestine paper Al qods Al arabi, published in London. He is known for his position of support of the Arab countries, which he does not quit defending publicly during his interviews broadcast by CNN, BBC…etc.

Source Al Quds Al Arabi (United Kingdom)
Reference «الاختبار الديمقراطي الفلسطيني», by Abdel Bari Atouan, Alquds- Alarabi, January 25, 2006.

Summary The third part of the Palestinian population has been called to participate in elections to choose the members of the Legislative Council, which is aimed at supervising the actions of the National Authority. This is an event that must remind us that about six million Palestinian refugees won’t take part in this historical event.

Despite not being really democratic due to the fact that they have been organized in the presence of the occupying Israel, these elections could be, for different reasons, a decisive element in the political life of Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict. If these elections are organized in a democratic way, they could put an end to a one-party domination period and give birth to a true political and media plurality. In addition, they would eliminate the corruption that has characterized governance and judge the responsible ones. It’s been planned that the results of the elections change the predominant view which has allowed a group of people to negotiate on behalf of Palestinians without having their approval; negotiations that question, among others, the right to return and the right to found a Palestinian state whose capital would be Jerusalem.
It’s true that the new Legislative Council will reflect those changes with total objectivity, but it should not follow the steps of the parliaments of the Arab regimes. This council should not permit secret negotiations or catastrophic agreements like those of Oslo. Elections are the most important test a people occupied by Israel should face. It’s the proper time to set the example of a national democracy that will look after the welfare of its people and will help them make their dreams come true.

Source: http://www.voltairenet.org/

"Hamas in power"

2006-04-07T08:55:00.000-07:00

Author Shlomo Avineri

Shlomo Avineri is a professor on Political Sciences at the Hebrew university of Jerusalem. He was the General Director of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Relations. Being a member of a satellite institute of the CIA in charge of assisting leftist parties, he has been involved in the democratization processes of many countries in Eastern Europe.

Sources Jordan Times (Jordan) , Daily Star (Lebanon), Korea Herald (South Korea)Reference «Hamas in power», by Shlomo Avineri, Jordan Times, January 27, 2006.
«Prospects of Hamas in power», Korea Herald, January 28, 2006.
«A predictable victory in a failed Palestinian state», Daily Star, January 28, 2006.

Summary The victory of Hamas fundamentalists will have unprecedented consequences for the region, but since now, two elements are discerned. Hamas’s victory is an evidence of the incapacity of the traditional Palestinian leadership to form a political body.

The Palestinian Authority, which has enjoyed certain autonomy since the Oslo Agreement took place, preferred to create dozens of security services instead of using the funds it has to meet the needs of Palestinians. The vacuum left by the Palestinian Authority in the social sphere has been filled by Hamas and this has made it very popular. Hamas won the elections thanks to its social activity and not to its Islamist program, its will to destroy Israel or the corruption of the outgoing Palestinian leadership.
Terrorism is still an open issue. It’s difficult to know if Hamas will become more radical or more pragmatic now that it’s in power. What’s evident is that Israel’s unilateral action will go on since the gap between Israelis and Palestinians is still huge. This, at least, should make Kadima stronger for next March 28 elections.

Source: http://www.voltairenet.org

"A six per cent democracy"

2006-04-07T08:50:00.000-07:00

Author Hind Khoury

Hind Khoury est ancienne représentante de l’Autorité palestinienne pour les affaires de Jérusalem et porte parole de l’Autorité palestinienne en France.

Source The Guardian (United Kingdom)
Reference «A six per cent democracy», by Hind Khoury, Guardian, January 26, 2006.

Summary Only 6% of the Palestinian electorate of the occupied zones of eastern Jerusalem was able to exercise its right to vote in its city in the second Palestinian legislative elections. In fact, the 6, 300 Palestinians that could do it –the number of those lucky ones authorized by Israel was completely arbitrary- had to deal with an intimidation campaign aimed at dissuading them from their intention to vote.
Israel tried to look good in the eyes of the international community by authorizing elections in eastern Jerusalem at the time that did its best to make life difficult to voters. Apart from limiting the number of them, Israel photocopied the list of voters and refused to guarantee that the vote would not be accompanied by reprisals, something that was added to the existent environment of terror.
International discussions with regard to this election were focused on Hamas, thus allowing Israel to suppress the democratic rights of Palestinians of Jerusalem. During the last two years, Israel has expanded the number of its colonies in eastern Jerusalem by an 8-meter-high wall that divides the Palestinian city of the West Bank. Ramallah and Bethlehem are now separated as if they were foreign countries. 94% of Palestinians living in Jerusalem, prevented from voting in their city, had to cross the wall to exercise their right to vote, go through barbed wires and face the anger of the military at Israeli check-points. But Israel knew only that a few Palestinians would choose to spend a whole day dealing with these difficult situations. Therefore, its intention was to deprive the electorate of eastern Jerusalem of its right to vote.
With the purpose of making people believe that the inhabitants of Jerusalem were participating in the elections «from abroad», these Palestinians were authorized to send their votes through the postal services. Last year, Palestinian negotiators tried to start negotiations so that all voters could vote. Israel ignored this request until the last moment despite the obligations of the «road map» that states that Palestinian elections should be facilitated. Under the effects of the international pressure, both parts discussed for a week the measures to be implemented during the three weeks of campaign. In what democracy, elections would be discussed by jurists and experts on the one side and the secret police and the army on the other? This shows how absurd it is to try to establish a Palestinian democracy under the Israeli occupation.
Such measures were made public when some Palestinians were arrested for placing electoral satirical posters or mobilizing themselves. The West has told us to introduce reforms and to establish democracy. What we did was the best possible campaign for those who oppose negotiations. The occupied territories in eastern Jerusalem have the same legal status that Jenin has in the West Bank. Eastern Jerusalem is not a disputed territory, it’s a territory illegally controlled by the Israeli state that claims that half of the city belongs to it.
Israel won nothing with this tactic of intimidation and obstruction. Its disdain for Palestinian democracy is not useful for its security or peace. There’s only one way to put an end to the conflict. A negotiation based on a fair solution and the international law is needed.

Source: http://www.voltairenet.org

"Press conference of the President"

2006-04-07T08:46:00.000-07:00

Author George W. Bush

George W. Bush is the President of the United States.

Source State Department (United States)
Reference «Press Conference of the President», by George W. Bush, U.S. Department of State, January 26, 2006. Text adapted from a press conference. We have only chosen the excerpts devoted to the situation in Palestine.

Summary I don’t believe peace is gone with the victory of Hamas for people want peace. The best opportunity for peace is the establishment of two democracies. The recent elections showed the power of democracy. Palestinians exercised their right to vote in a peaceful way and made their discontent known. This election must open the old Palestinian guard’s eyes.
But, on the other hand, I don’t know how one could be an interlocutor for peace when this person is an advocate for the destruction of a country and when he has an armed branch. Elections has just been held and we will closely follow the formation of the government. I repeat that those who want the destruction of Israel can’t be interlocutors for peace. We’ll have discussions with the Quartet with regard to the means to be used to go on with the peace process.
We don’t want Mahmud Abbas to resign but I deny the statements regarding the alleged financial aid we gave to the Palestinian Authority, so that it could have a better image among Palestinians. The funds we provided had been destined to the Palestinian for a long time as part of the USAID budget. We don’t support the party in power.

Source: http://www.voltairenet.org/article135316.html#article135316

"The bitter fruits of democracy"

2006-04-07T08:37:00.000-07:00

Author Daniel Pipes

Administrator of the US Institute of Peace, Daniel Pipes is founder of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America. He collaborates with Benador Associates. If you want to consult a detailed biography see the research made by Voltaire Network (text in French).

Sources National Post (Canada), The Australian (Australia)
Reference «Democracy’s bitter fruit», by Daniel Pipes, National Post, January 27, 2006
«Region not ripe for democracy», The Australian, January 30, 2006.

Summary Now that Hamas has apparently won the elections, the West is hoist with its own petard. Hamas is not only a terrorist group that wants to destroy Israel and attacks civilians, but it has also won a fair election. In view of this situation, the foreign ministries hesitate either to force the organization to be moderate or to reject it, to meet with its representatives or to avoid them, to continue financing the Palestinian Authority or to have it starve. We have created this situation.
At the same time, western countries have launched a war on terror and have wanted to build democracy. But it was not possible to do these two things in this region of unrest. Hence, the first fair Palestinian elections took Hamas to power. In Egypt, voted favoured the Muslim Brothers; in Iraq, we found the pro-Iranian Shia; in Lebanon, Hezbollah won the elections after the Syrian had gone and in Saudi Arabia the most radical elements are obtaining favourable results. In a nutshell, democracy in those countries has taken to power the worst enemies of the West.
After the Second World War, democratization in Germany or Japan took democratic parties to power. The difference with Middle East countries today is not the result of Islam or cultural factors but of the fact that the ideological enemies of the Middle East have not been defeated yet. Democratization took place in Germany after its population endured the totalitarian test. In the Middle East, totalitarian temptation still stands firmly.
Therefore, the democratization process in the Middle East has to be stopped and planned for decades to come. It is also necessary to defeat radical Islam by reassessing stability in the first stage. Coming back to the dilemma about Hamas, the western capitals have to make Palestinians understand that, as the Germans voted for Hitler in 1933, they made a decision which is unacceptable from the civilized point of view. The Palestinian Authority led by Hamas has to be isolated and rejected every time is convenient for Palestinians to realize their mistake.

Source: http://www.voltairenet.org/article135316.html#article135316

"The Arab regimes and Hamas’ victory"

2006-04-07T08:30:00.000-07:00

Author Abdel Bari Atouan

Abdel Bari Atouan was editor in chief of the Asharq Alaousat newspaper from 1984 to 1988, then he became editor in chief of the Palestine paper Al qods Al arabi, published in London. He is known for his position of support of the Arab countries, which he does not quit defending publicly during his interviews broadcast by CNN, BBC…etc.

Source Al Quds Al Arabi (United Kingdom)
Reference «أنظمة العرب وفوز حماس», by Abdel Bari Atouan, Al Quds Al Arabi, January 30, 2006.

Summary The victory of Hamas in democratic elections in the occupied territories surprised Arab regimes. A victory that will allow that movement to lead the country and relieve pressures by the US and Europe, which demand reforms.
What happened at the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is a true copy of what happened in Algeria during the elections of 1991. Algerians voted for the Islamic Salvation Front not because they were extremists but because they wanted to burry a corrupt regime through democratic elections. The main difference is that the prevailing military pressure group in Algeria at that time rejected the results and did not hesitate to declare null and void such results some days later, thus announcing the beginning of a y war that claimed tens of thousands of lives. But, in the case of Palestine, the Authority and its president Mahmud Abbas insisted on holding elections and respecting the results.
For Arab regimes, especially for Egypt, the US reaction to Hamas victory is another element for it to foster its oppression policy and forge election results to prevail as long as it can. It justifies its actions to take power through the need for safety in the region bearing in mind that democratic elections will serve first the interests of the Islamic extremist groups. Besides, the Israeli government has adopted this vision and dictated it to the US and European leaders.
It is not the first time that the Bush administration is wrong about the information on the situation in the occupied territories. A defeat due to the fact that when it comes to drafting its policy, this administration relies on Israeli calculations and some experts of the Middle East from study centres in Egypt and occupied Palestine. And there is something worst. The neoconservatives take the risk of making a serious mistake by refusing to financially support the government that the Islamic movement will establish. In other words, they want to punish the Palestinian people for their electoral and democratic action while increasingly pushing it into extremism. The US decision shows that the latter insists in cooperating with dictatorships, as long as these ones continue to signing peace agreements with the Hebrew state, thus fully approving the US policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and supporting a war against Tehran.
Hamas has shown to be much smarter and civilized than the Bush administration, especially for having declared its willingness to cooperate with the international community. The US administration, which runs the free and democratic world, declared the war against Palestinian elections just two days after it had acknowledged they had been democratic. It is true that the Islamic movement should bear a heavy responsibility, but its lack of experience in the management of a corrupted authority such as that of Abu Mazen and his anti-American policy give it the right to make mistakes.
The US-Europe refusal to financially support a Hamas government could complicate the movement’s job. But, fortunately, there are always other alternatives and one of the main ones continues to be the Iranian support. Indeed, people talk about the Iranian support since we are certain that the Arab regimes will never hurry to support Hamas.

Source : http://www.voltairenet.org/article135316.html#article135316

"Hamas will make a deal"

2006-04-07T08:12:00.000-07:00

Author Azzam Tamimi

Ancien porte-parole de la Muslim Association of Britain, auteur d’un livre, à paraître, sur le Hamas, Azzam Tamimi est directeur de l’Institute of Islamic Political Thought.

Source The Guardian (United Kingdom)
Reference «Hamas will make a deal», by Azzam Tamimi, The Guardian, January 30, 2006.

Summary A so-called expert recently told the BBC that Hamas would have to change now that it was in power since the Palestinian wanted a government that would recognize Israel, resume negotiations and be acceptable to the United States. If that were the case, Palestinians would have voted for Al Fatah. If they did it for Hamas, it is precisely due to opposite reasons, contrary to what the expert had indicated: Hamas does not recognize Israel, it does not want to continue a humiliating peace process and prefers to be accepted by Palestinians rather than by Americans.
However, the fact that Hamas does not recognize Israel does not mean that it is unable to negotiate. Hamas could negotiate on the basis of the concept of hudnah (truce). For Hamas, Palestinians are the scapegoat of the holocaust in Europe. But Israel is a reality with which it is necessary to negotiate. The Oslo process and its continuation are based upon the principle that Israel is the victim and the key for peace is the end of terrorism. The new peace process that Hamas and the Palestinian want has to be based on the fact that the Palestinians are the victims of the occupation and the problem is not terrorism but the Israeli aggression.
And before being killed by missiles, the sheik Yasín had admitted that in case the borders were nor re-established as in 1967, a solution might be a ceasefire for more than one generation. Today, the IRA dreams of a reunified Ireland but does not allow negotiations with the British government. We will let the pro-Great Israel followers dream of Eretz Israel which expands from the Nile to Euphrates but we should not stop negotiating.

Source http://www.voltairenet.org/article135316.html#article135316

Is Islam Compatible with Modern Civilisation?

2006-04-07T07:35:00.000-07:00

Our Muslim ancestors were more aware of the succession of civilisations than we are today.

It may be obvious now that the Islamic law or Shariah, through the spacious room allowed for human intellectual efforts to cope with change (itjihad), can benefit from any contemporary experience, especially that of the developed Western countries in their political, administrative and economical systems. An essential question may be raised by some Islamists (Islamic ideologists or activists): how can Muslims rely on the products of a civilization that has denied God and has opposed or ignored any collective practice of religion from the society as a whole?

In the beginning of the 18th century, when the Europeans colonised Muslim lands, the people experienced shocking material and moral changes and found themselves in a puzzling dilemma. On the one hand, the humiliation of invasion and suppression created strong feelings of anger and resentment. On the other hand, the inhabitants of the Muslim lands were dazzled by modern European civilisation with its advanced technology and organisation, a sentiment that had not been strongly felt during previous confrontation with the west. There is a great difference, for example, between the impression which the Crusaders left on the Muslim knight Usama ibn Munqidh (d. 1188), as recorded in his memoirs Al-I’tibar, and that which the French invaders of Egypt left on Muslim scholar and historian al-Jabarti (d. 1825) as reported in his Aja’ib al-Athar.

Usama witnessed the European Crusaders who appeared strange to him in their way of life. He might have found them militarily strong and victorious but he did not feel for a second that they were representatives of a civilisation superior, or even equal to his, in military or civil life. For al-Jabarti, on the other hand, the impact of the French invaders was tremendous. Not only did they have superior military technology, but also better organisation and administration

Colonialism left Muslims with mixed feelings of hatred and admiration. Muslim reaction to colonial occupation varied. Some Muslims believed that they should swallow the bitterness of colonialism and adopt a positive attitude for the sake of progress. This attitude was emphasised by successive generations of Muslim thinkers and writers such as Shaykh Rifa’a al Tahtawi (d.1873), Shaykh Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905), Qasim Amin (d.1908), Lufti al-Sayyid (d. 1963) and Taha Husayn (d. 1974) in Egypt, Medhat Pasha (d. 1883) in the Ottoman Sultanate, Khayr ul-Din Pasha (d.1879) in Tunisia and Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d.1889) in India.

In spite of the benefits of the application of Greek logic to Arabic linguistics and Islamic theology and jurisprudence, the classical argument of some Islamic scholars such as Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyya against it, as well as the argument of al-Ghazali against Greek philosophy in general, were revived to prove that any foreign epistemological approach could damage genuine Islamic knowledge. Some supporters of such an attitude went further to restrict the genuine Islamic civilisation that truly represented the teachings of Islam to the period of the early four caliphs (al-Rashidin).

As soon as the Second World War came to an end, national frustration fuelled by external Western pressures and internal Westernized leaders increased the hostility of Muslims against the West. This provided a suitable climate for the Islamists to carry on their campaign against Western civilisation on cultural and ideological grounds.

Robin W. Winks in his book, Western Civilisation, explains that the Enlightenment, which is said to run from 1687, the date that Newton’s work was published, to the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789, was seen an age of light, of special wisdom about human nature.

There was no longer any need for a God as the Creator of all things. There no longer was either need or justification for miracles, for all so-called miracles should be capable of scientific explanation. The universe was governed by precise mechanical laws that were capable of mathematical proof; this universe could run for eternity without the intervention of God. The world was a machine. In such a psychological and intellectual climate, arose the modern European civilization.

The suspicious attitude of Islamists towards modern civilization in the early decades of the 20th century can be understood and justified. However, continued adherence to such a standpoint should be revised as Western civilisation has become global, spreading over the world with its various denominations, cultures, social structures and political systems.

Islamists have to realise that there is a place for cultural and ideological differences within its global and dynamic civilisation itself, and therefore any rigid rejection of it would be against the interests of Muslims in their practical life.

The Islamists should realise that they cannot create a contemporary Islamic civilization in a vacuum. Without a positive approach and active participation, it is impossible to graft Islamic values onto the present civilisation.

Our Muslim ancestors were more aware of the succession of civilisations than we are today. They adopted what was useful in the achievements of existing civilisations in science, mathematics, philosophy and humanities, as well as in state organisation and administration. The intellectual heritage of Greeks, Persians and Indians was translated and systems of administrative organisation (dawawin), land-taxation (kharaj), customs (ushur), police and prisons were introduced.

We should think seriously and concretely about the Islamic civilisation which we believe in. Adhering always to the rejection of others’ achievements is a very poor means of confirming one’s identity.

(Excerpts from Dr. Fathi Osman’s book, Sharia in Contemporary Society - The Dynamics of Change in the Islamic Law)

Source: islamicvoice.com

Terrorism and Jihad: An Islamic Perspective -Part 4

2006-04-05T11:12:00.000-07:00

By Dr. Zakir Naik

I ask people throughout the world: why don’t you read your own religious scriptures first?

Deceit – Quoting Scriptures Out of Context

Frequently, many of the sceptics and critics of Islam pick up the verses of the Qur’an and they say that the Qur’an says we should kill the non-Muslims and they quote the verses. One such famous verse which is quoted by most of the critics to attack the Qur’an is verse 5 of Surah Tawbah (i.e. Ch. No. 9 V. No. 5) in which Allah (swt) states:

“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give Zakah, let them (go) on their way.

Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” [Surah At-Tawbah 9:5]

This verse is even used by Arun Shourie, one of the staunchest critics of Islam. Even he quotes this famous verse in his book “The world of Fatawas”. In his book, Arun Shourie has inserted the word ‘Hindu’ next to the word ‘Kafir’ in the translation of this verse. Please note that the meaning of the Arabic word ‘Kafir’ is ‘one who rejects faith, a disbeliever. Arun Shourie gives the translation of this verse as follows” “Whenever you find a Kafir (Hindu), you kill him and wait for him in every stratagem of war”. In this manner, Arun Shourie is trying to show the world that this book of the Muslims, this word of Almighty God, the Glorious Qur’an, asks the Muslims to kill the non-Muslims (and in brackets the word ‘Hindus’) whenever and wherever you find them. Furthermore after quoting verse No. 5 in this book of his, he jumps to verse No. 7 of the same Surah (chapter) of the Qur’an.If anyone quotes any text out of context, you may not understand the meaning of that text. However, if you read the context you will understand the meaning of that text. The first few verses of Surah Tawbah Ch. No. 9 speak about the peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriks of Makkah.This peace treaty was unilaterally broken by the Mushriks of Makkah. So it is in this context that Almighty Allah states in verse no. 5 that whenever you find the enemy in the battlefield – kill him.

Allah is telling the Muslims, don’t get scared in the battle field, whenever the enemy comes to attack, fight them, and kill them if required; wait for them in every stratagem of war. This verse of the Qur’an is in the context of a battlefield. When the enemies who have broken the peace treaty, when they attack you, don’t get scared in the battlefield, fight them, if required even kill them. Now any army general, any President of any country, or any Prime Minister, to boost the morale of his soldiers he will use these words. For example, a few decades earlier, there was a war between America and Vietnam. If the American President or Army General tells the American soldiers in the battlefield that they should not get scared and wherever they find a Vietnamese, they should kill him, now if we were to quote the American President and say that he said that wherever you find a Vietnamese kill him, we will make him sound like a cruel man. Such a statement is appropriate in the battle field, to boost up the morale, when two opposing forces are arrayed against each other. In a similar manner, the Qur’anic verse refers to the situation in the battlefield, when the enemies had broken a peace treaty.

Arun Shourie, after quoting verse no. 5, jumps to verse no. 7. Any logical person will understand that there is something in verse no. 6 which he has not quoted.

Verse 6 of Surah Taubah states:

“And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah (i.e. the Qur’an). Then deliver him to his place of safety.” [Surah At-Tawbah 9:6]

I ask you, which army general in the world today, even if he may be the best human in the world, which army general will make such a statement as that made in this verse 6 – “deliver him to his place of safety”? The maximum he will say, if he is a good human, is that let the enemy go. No army general today will instruct his soldiers or his forces to escort the enemy to a place of security. But then this is what the Qur’an says – that if any of your enemies seek peace, do not fight them, but instead escort them to a place of security. Such a gesture is one of magnanimity, of forgiveness and of reciprocation of peace. And this is the verse that is deliberately skipped by Arun Shourie in his book. When the enemies of Islam and the Islam-baiters attack Islam, it is the duty of the Muslims to clarify doubts and remove the misconceptions.

Fighting for a just cause has been prescribed by all major religions.

I am a student of comparative religion. Please read the scriptures of all the major world religions – fighting has been prescribed in all religious scriptures. Yes. All the major religions of the world have prescribed fighting, at sometime or the other, especially in self-defence or for fighting against oppression and injustice.

(The Lord said) “Go ye after him through the city, and kill: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: [Book of Ezekiel 9:5]

“(Moses said): Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.” [Book of Exodus 32:27-28]

Jesus Christ (Pbuh) told the Apostles, his followers, to take up the sword and fight, and one of the Apostles, chopped off a person’s ears.

Then said he (Jesus) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. [Gospel of Luke 22:36]

And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. [Gospel of Matthew 26:51]

So if the Christians read their scriptures, what does the scripture say? That you have to fight!

I ask the Hindus: Have you read Mahabharata? What is the Mahabharata? The Mahabharata, an epic and religious scripture of the Hindus, talks about the fight between two families of relatives, between the cousins, the Pandavas and the Kauravas. The Bhagavad Gita is the essence of the Mahabharata. If you read the Bhagavad Gita, it contains eighteen chapters that talk about fighting.

In the battlefield, Arjun prefers not to fight and be killed rather than having his conscience burdened with the killing of his relatives. At this moment, Krishna advises Arjun in the battlefield and this advice is contained in the Bhagavad Gita. There are several verses in the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna advises Arjun to fight and kill the enemies even though they are his relatives.

The Bhagavad Gita is advice given by Lord Krishna to Arjuna when Arjuna is depressed in the battlefield and says, “how can I kill, how can I fight my relatives and my cousins?”

O Krishna, maintainer of the people, I have heard by disciplic succession that those who destroy family traditions dwell always in hell”

“Alas, how strange it is that we are preparing ourselves to commit great sinful acts, driven by the desire to enjoy royal happiness.”

I would consider better for the sons of Dhritarashtra to kill me unarmed and unresisting rather than fight with them.

“Arjuna, having thus spoken, cast aside his bow and arrow, and sat down on the chariot, his mind, overwhelmed with grief”. [Bhagavad Gita 1:43-46]

So Lord Krishna gives advice to Arjuna that he should fight for the truth even if it be against your father, against your relative – do not hesitate, fight them, kill them says that Lord Krishna.

“My dear Arjuna, how have these impurities come upon you? They are not at all befitting a man who knows the progressive values of life. They lead not to higher planets but to infamy.

“O son of Partha, do not yield to this degrading impotence. It does not become you. Give up such petty weakness of heart and arise, O chastiser of the enemy!” [Bhagavad Gita 2:2-3]

Krishna further says:

“Considering your specific duty as a Kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles, so there is no need for hesitation.”

“O Partha, happy are the Kshatriya to whom such fighting opportunities come unsought, opening for them the door of the heavenly planets”.

“If however, you do not fight this religious war, then you will certainly incur sin, for neglecting your duties, and thus lose your reputation as a fighter”. [Bhagavad Gita 2:31-33]

It will be devilish on my part if I were to pick up some selective verses of the Bhagavad Gita and tell the Hindus that their most popular religious book tells you to kill your relatives.

All verses of religious scriptures are to be understood in their respective contexts. The context is that even if it is your own relatives that are against the truth, you have to first follow the commandment of Almighty God. For the truth you can and should fight anyone who obstructs truth and justice or anyone who perpetuates wrong doing, falsehood and injustice, irrespective of whether it is your father, or any of your other relatives.

The same message is even given in the Qur’an. Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an in Surah Nisa Ch. No. 4, V. No. 135:

“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives.

Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both.” [Surah An-Nisa 4:135]

You have to fight for justice even if it is against your own interests. You have to stand out for witnessing Allah (swt) and for witnessing the truth of Almighty God even if it is against yourself, against your parents and against your relatives.

I ask people throughout the world: why don’t you read your own religious scriptures first? There is more fighting mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita than in the Qur’an. That does not mean that what the Bhagavad Gita states is wrong. The Quran says in Surah Al-e-Imran Ch. 3 V. 64:

“Come to a word that is equitable between us and you that we will not worship except Allah...” [Surah Al-e-Imran 3:64]

I ask the critics of Islam: “Have you read the scriptures of the other religions?” Almost all the major religions in the world have prescribed fighting at one time or the other – for the truth – whether it is Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or Islam. So why are you selectively picking up Islam, targeting it and doing false propaganda against it?

(The English translation of verses of the Glorious Qur’an is taken from the translation published by Saheeh International.

The English translation of verses of the Bhagavad Gita is taken from Bhagavad Gita – As It Is by Swami Prabhupada.

The English translation of verses of the Bible is taken from the King James Version).

(Dr Zakir Naik is the President of the Mumbai-based Islamic Research Foundation and can be reached at zakir@irf.net)

Source: islamicvoice.com

English

2006-03-30T12:22:00.000-08:00

ISLAM:

Tolerance Towards Non-Muslims By Dr. Zakir Naik
Is Islam Compatible with Modern Civilisation? By Dr. Fathi Osman
Danish Cartoons and Muslims By Asghar Ali Engineer
Terrorism and Jihad: An Islamic Perspective - Part - 3 By Dr. Zakir Naik
Terrorism and Jihad: An Islamic Perspective -Part 4 By Dr. Zakir Naik
Terrorism and Jihad: An Islamic Perspective –Part – 5 By Dr. Zakir Naik
Non-Muslims' Right to Protection of Life By Dr. Zakir Naik
ON ABSENCE OF DEMOCRACY IN MUSLIM WORLD By Asghar Ali Engineer

POLITIC:

"Hamas has arrived but there are limits to its advance" Authors Robert Malley, Hussein Agha
"Palestinian elections: an ace for peace in the Middle East’ Author Marwan Bishara
’Palestinian elections: Let’s not miss the chance again…!’ Author Saleh Alkallab
"Two electoral campaigns" Author Yossi Beilin
"The Palestinian democratic election" Author Abdel Bari Atouan
"Hamas in power" Author Shlomo Avineri
"A six per cent democracy" Author Hind Khoury
"Press conference of the President" Author George W. Bush
"The bitter fruits of democracy" Author Daniel Pipes
"The Arab regimes and Hamas’ victory" Author Abdel Bari Atouan
"Hamas will make a deal" Author Azzam Tamimi
Opinion: The Shia-Sunni battle for oil By Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar
Rise of do-it-yourself terrorism By Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar
Terrorists as vote banks By Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar
Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly By Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar

Indonesia

2006-03-30T12:21:00.000-08:00

Mengenal Islam Syiah Oleh Khairurrazi
Profil Tokoh: Presiden India DR. APJ Abdul Kalam
Manusia Yang Terbaik Oleh Khairurrazi
Absennya Demokrasi di Dunia Islam (1) Alih bahasa oleh Khairurrazi
Absennya Demokrasi di Dunia Islam (2) Alih bahasa oleh Khairurrazi
Absennya Demokrasi di Dunia Islam (3) Alih bahasa oleh Khairurrazi
Absennya Demokrasi di Dunia Islam (4) Alih bahasa oleh Khairurrazi
Absennya Demokrasi di Dunia Islam (5) Alih bahasa oleh Khairurrazi

Danish Cartoons and Muslims

2006-03-30T11:59:00.000-08:00

By Asghar Ali Engineer

One has the right to protest, but right to protest should also be exercised peacefully.

The cartoons published in Danish papers caricaturing the Prophet (Pbuh) has once again taken world of Islam by storm. There are demonstrations throughout Islamic world – some violent, some peaceful and in some cases like Afghanistan several people have been killed in very violent demonstrations. The Danish Government initially took stand that it is a matter of freedom of press and it cannot stop any paper from publishing such cartoons, as it cannot interfere with the freedom of press. When protests began, some European papers also published these cartoons sending the message that freedom of press is above everything else, even above religious sensibilities.

When Salman Rushdie had published his novel Satanic Verses, that time too there were violent protests in many Muslim countries and Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to kill Rushdie and even declared an award on his head. That time too, the European nations had invoked human rights and freedom of opinion to defend Salman Rushdie for his insulting remarks against Islam and the Prophet and his wives.

Is it really a matter of freedom of opinion or something else, which is not spelt out? If one examines things closely, it will become obvious that there is much more than freedom of press or even freedom of conscience. It is a multi layered and multi-causal phenomenon. It would be really simplistic to reduce it to freedom of press though it might appear to be so.

One cannot deny that throughout western world, there is tension between westerners and Muslims. In every European country, Muslims are seen as not only outsiders, but also as a menace, a threat, to their values and their culture. In many countries, this tension is quite palpable and in some countries it remains subdued. The fact is that for the Western world, pluralism is a very new phenomenon and they are finding it very hard to digest it. Their democracy has been monolingual, mono-religious and mono-cultural.

As far as political democracy is concerned, it is well established, but freedom of opinion and differences of opinion are confined merely to political sphere and within the frame- work of mono-religious and mono-cultural situation. For Asians, on the other hand, pluralism has been the way of life. They have lived and co-existed with different religions harmoniously. Even in the absence of political democracy, tolerance towards other religions and cultures has been their way of life. We do not find bloodshed in Asian countries between followers of different religions throughout medieval ages.

In the West, on the other hand, though there has been political democracy and tolerance for political differences, its record on religious and cultural tolerance has not been very glorious. Since political democracy demands tolerance and freedom of opinion, they tried to apply it to religious and cultural field too, but I am afraid, not with very great success. Below the skin they remain mono-religious and mono-cultural.

There is one more dimension to this problem. West has never been very comfortable with Islam and Muslims. It was always seen as a religion of the alien, and hostile alien, at that. France with all its democratic and secular values interpreted secularism within a very narrow French framework it became very uncomfortable with hijab worn by school girls and at last the Central Government banned it. How the hijab worn by schoolgirls could be a threat to French secularism, we fail to understand.

In fact hijab was only a symbol. Behind it, they saw Islam as a threat. In all European countries, Muslims are recent migrants and are perceived as double threat – as migrant and as Muslim. All migrants make natives uncomfortable and more so if they belong to a religion or culture perceived to be hostile. Prof. Huntington of Harvard had given vent to the western feelings when he wrote Clash of Civilizations.

Western countries were compelled to allow Asian and African migrants as they were experiencing acute shortage of human-power after Second World War, but once migration reached saturation point and economic downturn began, tensions began to surface and in many countries racial riots broke out.

There is yet another factor: these Asian and African migrants soon realised they are condemned to remain on margins of western society. They do not get opportunities for better and well paid jobs and their children, out of frustration, take to drug or crime or to violence, further reinforcing the images of a violent outsider. Since there is so much hostility between Western Christians and migrant Muslims, it erupts in different ways. The recent cartoons and caricature of the Prophet should also be seen in this light. The events of 9/11 have only aggravated the whole situation. Be it Salman Rushdie affair or the cartoons published in the Newspaper of Denmark, it is part of the same phenomenon. Deep prejudices against Islam and Muslims spring up in different forms and are defended in the name of press freedom.

The Muslim intelligentsia also needs to cultivate more tolerance. Well one has the right to protest, but right to protest should also be exercised peacefully. As there are some limitations to right to freedom of press, there are certain well-defined limitations to right to protest in democracy. The Muslim intelligentsia and leaders should reflect deeply as to why their demonstrations tend to be violent? Are they not playing in the hands of those leaders who have their political agenda?

If Islam is a religion of peace and it indeed is, why Muslims tend to be so violent? Let us realise that no one can live in this multi-religious world on one’s own terms. It was not becoming for Muslims to tear flags of Denmark or set to fire their embassies or become so violent while demonstrating that police be compelled to fire and kill demonstrators. This leads to more fury and more violence.

A silent and peaceful demonstration is far more telling than a violent one. Since these demonstrations are on religious issue, the demonstrations should also be held with religious dignity and religious values.

According to the Qur’an, a believer is one who restrains his anger and pardons.What kind of believers are we, that we always talk of killing and punishing rather than restraining and pardoning. It hardly brings any glory to Islam and Muslims.

Modern world values education, understanding, tolerance and co-existence. We were given these virtues by the Quran more than 1400 years ago. But we never studied the Quran and when we studied, we did so to fight our sectarian battles against each other.

We need to re-visit the Qur’an and reflect upon its ethical teachings far more seriously. It is not our dogmas, which will make us acceptable in the world, but it is the Quranic ethics which will. The world will judge us not by our dogmas, but by our morality and ethics.

(The writer can be reached at csss@mtnl.net.in)

Source: islamicvoice.com

Terrorism and Jihad: An Islamic Perspective - Part - 3

2006-03-30T11:51:00.000-08:00

By Dr. Zakir Naik

The best form of Jihad in today’s times is Da’wah and removing the misconceptions about Islam.

Follow not the footsteps of the Devil Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur’an in Surah Al-Baqarah Ch. 2, V. no. 208. ”O you who have believed, enter into Islam completely (and perfectly) and do not follow the footsteps of Satan.

Indeed he is to you a clear enemy.” [Surah Al-Baqarah 2:208]

What does Allah mean when he says that do not follow the footsteps of the devil? In the Qur’an, there is a different meaning of the words “do not follow the Satan” and there is a different meaning of the words “do not follow the footsteps of the Satan”. Let me give you an example: suppose there is an average ‘Muslim’ – i.e. an average believer – if the Satan comes directly to him, he will abstain from him and the temptation offered by him. For example if a young lady comes to a young Muslim, with average IMAN (faith) and tells him, “let’s spend the night together”, he will say “No, its Haraam” because he realizes that it is Satan who is tempting him; hence he will not agree.

However, the same Muslim person if he receives a phone call from a young lady, he will say that there is no problem in speaking to a young lady on the phone. Later on when the lady says, let’s go out to tea or let’s have some burgers may be in McDonalds or in Kentucky Fried Chicken, he will say that there is no problem in going out with a lady just to have a burger. Then she suggests that let’s go and have dinner, so they go to a restaurant to have dinner. He will say that there is no problem in having dinner with a young lady in a restaurant. Then she says, “Let’s spend the night together”, and he succumbs to the temptation and he says “no problem”.

So this is “khutuwatish-shaitan” – the footsteps of the devil. When the Satan comes in front of you directly and if you have little faith, you will immediately object. But if the devil approaches you in a subtle manner by a step-by-step approach i.e. the footsteps of the devil beckon you, you will not realise that how you sway towards the devil.

The person thinks that there is no issue or no problem in speaking to a ‘Na Maharam’ lady on the phone. ‘Na-Maharam’ means a person (in this case this lady) who is an absolute stranger to you or a person with whom marriage is permissible. There are some limits of Hijab in Islam. So the person starts speaking, then goes out with her to have a burger or for dinner at a restaurant, then eventually sleeps with her. So beware of the footsteps of the devil. In several places in the Qur’an, Allah (swt) cautions us about the “khutuwatish-shaitan”, or the footsteps of the devil. Anyway this is just an example to make us understand what Allah means when He says “Khutuwatish-Shaitan”. The same applies to a girl when a boy comes and calls her, the same example can be used. We Muslims have to obey Allah (swt) in all spheres of our lives. All our words, acts and deeds have to be in accordance with His Commands. This requires one to strive to constantly prevent oneself from succumbing to various temptations that surround us and to strive to make one’s baser self, one’s basic instincts to submit to the Will of Allah. This striving too is Jihad.

“He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hands; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue; and if he has not the strength to do it (even) then he should abhor it with his heart and that is the least of faith”.

(Sahih Al-Muslim Vol. 1 The Book of Faith Chapter 21 Hadith No. 79)That means a Muslim, whenever he sees any evil, if he can, he should strive to stop it with his hand. If he cannot stop it with his hand, he should at least open his mouth to strive to prevent that act or to warn or dissuade. If he is even afraid to open his mouth, the least he can do is to curse that evil deed in his heart, and if he does that, he is on the lowest level of a believer.

The Best Jihad in Today’s Times Seeing the scenario that we have today throughout the world, the best form of Jihad today according to me is Da’wah i.e. conveying the message of Islam to non-Muslims and removing the misconceptions about Islam from their minds. Allah Knows Best.

Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an: Say, (O Muhammad):
“If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and Jihad (i.e. striving) in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command.

And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.”

[Surah At-Tawbah 9:24]Allah asks - what is your consideration? Is it your father, your sons, your brothers, your spouses, husbands or wives, your relatives, the wealth you have accumulated, the business in which you deal, the house in which you live – Allah asks “what is your consideration?” and Allah continues, “… if you love all these things more than Allah, His Messenger and doing Jihad in the Way of Allah, striving and struggling in the Way of Allah (swt), then Allah says you wait until He brings His decision upon you, until Allah brings His destruction on you and Allah guides not the Faasiq people, the perverted transgressors”.

Allah says in Surah Muhammad Ch. No. 47 V. No. 38

“And if you turn away (i.e. refuse),

He will replace you with another people; then they will not be the likes of you.” [Surah Muhammad 47:38]

If you turn away from The Path, if you do not do your duties, which Allah has assigned you, Allah will substitute in your place another people and they will not be niggardly, disobedient, lazy and negligent (of duties to Allah) like you. Allah says in Surah Al—Imran Ch. No. 3 V. No. 110

“You are the best nation produced (as an example) for mankind.

You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah.”
[Surah Al—Imran 3:110]

Allah (swt) is giving us an honour by calling us Muslims the best of people. Whenever there is honour, it is always followed up with a responsibility. There is no honour without responsibility. When Allah calls us the “Khairah Ummah”, he is giving one of the highest honours to us, and don’t you think we have a responsibility? The responsibility is mentioned in the same verse. Allah continues and says because we should enjoin what is good, we should forbid what is wrong and we should trust and believe in Allah.

It is a fardh, an obligatory duty, on every Muslim to convey the message of Islam, to remove the misconception from the minds of non-Muslims so that they understand Islam. According to me the best form of Jihad in today’s times is Da’wah; it is conveying the message of Islam and removing the misconceptions about Islam.

Attack by the Media

Today we find virulent propaganda about Islam in the international media, whether it is in the international newspapers or magazines, on satellite channels, on radio stations, on the internet – the enemies of Islam are attacking Islam. According to an article published in the TIME magazine issue of 16th of April 1979, there were 150,000 books written against Islam in a span of only 150 years, between 1800 and1950. Imagine – 150,000 books have been written only against Islam. That means more than one book is written against Islam everyday. Moreover, we find in the media today, the Muslims are being attacked.

You cannot blame a common non-Muslim if he is against Islam unless we Muslims clarify their doubts and remove the misconceptions. It is the job of the Muslims to know how to reply and remove the misconceptions.

(To be continued)

The English translation of verses of the Glorious Qur’an are taken from the translation published by Saheeh International.

(Dr Zakir Naik is the President of the Mumbai-based Islamic Research Foundation and can be reached at zakir@irf.net)

Source: islamicvoice.com

MANUSIA YANG TERBAIK

2006-01-14T00:53:00.000-08:00

Menjadi Manusia yang terbaik tentunya didambakan oleh setiap insan Namun untuk mendapatkan predikat tersebut sudah tentu ada saratnya. Kita sebagai seorang muslim, memiliki dua hal yang harus kita jaga untuk mencapainya, yang pertama adalah hablumminallah (hubungan kita sebagai hamba dengan Allah SWT) dan yang kedua, yang tak kalah pentingnya adalah hablum minan nas (hubungan baik sesama manusia). Seorang muslim belum dapat mengklaim dirinya sebagai seorang yang terbaik jika salah satu diantara keduanya belum dijalankan dengan baik pula.

Islam yang memiliki lima rukun, mulai dari mengucapkan dua kaliamah syahadat, sholat, zakat, puasa dan mengerjakan ibadah haji bagi yang mampu adalah merupakan gabungan antara hablumminallah dan hablum minan nas, gabungan antara hubungan vertikal dan horizontal.

Pengakuan seorang hamba saat mengucapkan dua kalimah syahadat merupakan tali ikatan untuk menjadi manusia yang terbaik. Kesaksian seorang hamba bahwa tiada tuhan selain Allah dan kesaksian bahwa Nabi Muhammad saw adalah rasul utusan Allah merupakan titik awal menuju manusia yang sempurna. Namun pengakuan dan kesaksian tidaklah cukup tanpa terus menerus menjaga hubungan baik dengan Sang pencipta yaitu dengan melaksanakan sholat sebagai rukun islam yang kedua.

Solat lima waktu yang dilakukan muslim setiap hari mengandung banyak simbol yang menggambarkan wujud ketaatan dan kerendahan manusia mu’min di hadapan Allah. Dalam sholat, seorang muslim secara simbolis mengikrarkan diri untuk menyerahkan segala gerak-gerik, hidup dan mati hanya untuk Allah. Ikrar yang secara rutin diucapkan ini diharapkan tidak hanya sebatas ucapan, namun diwujudkan sebagai bukti konkrit dalam bentuk aktivitas.

Dalam sholat terdapat simbol-simbol seperti ruku’ (lambang dari ketundukan pada hukum Allah) dan sujud (lambang dari ketaatan kepada perintah Allah). Di samping itu, sholat adalah ibadah anfus (diri). Maknanya, dalam rangka menegakkan Din(agama) Allah, selayaknya seorang Muslim mampu mengorbankan diri (kepentingan individu atau kelompok, waktu, tenaga, dan pikiran) demi tegaknya hukum.

Setelah menjaga hubungan baik dengan Allah dengan melaksanakan ibadah sholat, maka seseorang Muslim yang ingin menjadi manusia terbaik sebagaimana yang telah kita sebutkan tadi, juga hendaknya menjaga hubungan baik dengan sesama manusia, saling menasehati, peka terhadap kehidupan sosial, memiliki sikap peduli terhadap sesama, membantu orang-orang yang membutuhkan bukan malah lari atau berpikir akan ada orang lain yang akan membantunya. Dalam sebuah hadis disebutkan "Sebaik-baik manusia adalah mereka yang paling banyak memberi manfaat untuk manusia (orang lain)"
Islam di dalam rukunnya yang ke tiga mengharuskan bagi setiap muslim untuk mengeluarkan zakat. Dalam makna simbolis, zakat mal (harta) dan zakat fitrah bertujuan mengikis rasa kepemilikan manusia atas hartanya, agar manusia menyadari bahwa hartanya adalah amanat dari Sang Pemilik Harta yang Mahakaya yaitu Allah SWT. Zakat juga mengajarkan kita untuk dapat merasakan denyut penderitaan orang lain. Dengan zakat pula penderitaan orang lain akan menjadi ringan, orang-orang yang kelaparan sudah tidak lagi merasakan pedihnya karena tidak makan dan minum bahkan terkadang sampai berhari-hari. Bukankah ibadah puasa yang melarang untuk makan dan minum menjadi pelajaran bagi kita untuk dapat merasakan bagaimana jika tidak makan dan minum.

Ibadah zakat sebagai ibadah maaliyah (harta) sering digandengkan dengan ibadah Shalat. Ini berarti bahwa dalam rangka menegakkan Din(agama) Islam dan untuk menjadi seorang seorang mukmin yang sempurna dituntut untuk mengorbankan dirinya dan sebagian hartanya. Hal ini dituangkan secara jelas di dalam Al qur'an "Hai orang-orang yang beriman, sukakah kamu Aku tunjukkan suatu perniagaan yang dapat menyelmatkan kamu dari azab yang pedih? (yaitu) kamu beriman kepada Allah dan Rasul-Nya dan berjihad di jalan Allah dengan harta dan jiwamu, itulah yang lebih baik bagi kamu jika kamu mengetahuinya. Niscaya Allah akan mengampuni dosa-dosamu dan memasukkan kamu kedalam surga yang mengalir di bawahnya sungai-sungai, dan (memasukkan kamu) ketempat tinggal yang baik di dalam surga ‘And. Itulah keberungtungan yang besar. "(QS Ash-Shaff/61: 10-12.)

Cara lain yang diajarkan islam untuk tetap menjaga hubungan baik antara sesama manusia adalah disyariatkannya ibadah qurban. Dengan berqurban, akan tertanam di diri kita sifat kepedulian kepada kaum dhuafa, yakni orang-orang yang membutuhkan hewan kurban yang merupakan tanggung jawab kita bersama sebagai saudara seiman. Selain itu, dalam ibadah kurban juga tersirat pesan-pesan rohani agar kita ikut aktif dan bertanggung jawab untuk menciptakan suasana persaudaraan. Ini disyaratkan Alquran melalui firman-Nya: ''Maka, makanlah sebagian dari padanya dan sebagian lagi untuk dimakan orang-orang sengsara lagi fakir.'' (QS Al-Hajj: 28).
Menjaga hubungan baik sesama manusia bukan hanya sesama manusia yang masih hidup, akan tetapi juga dengan mereka yang telah mendahului kita yaitu dengan mengenang jasa-jasa dan pengorbanan mereka serta mendoakan mereka.
Pada bulan ini yaitu bulan Zulhijjah sebagian umat islam melaksanakan ibadah haji, Latar belakang ibadah ini didasarkan pada ibadah serupa yang dilaksanakan oleh nabi-nabi sebelum nabi Muhammad SAW, terutama nabi Ibrahim. Ritual Tawaf didasarkan pada ibadah serupa yang dilaksanakan oleh umat-umat sebelum nabi Ibarahim. Ritual Sa'i, yakni berlari antara bukit Shafa dan Marwa, juga didasarkan untuk mengenang ritual istri kedua nabi Ibrahim ketika mencari air untuk anaknya yaitu Nabi Ismail. Sementara Wukuf di Arafah adalah ritual untuk mengenang tempat bertemunya Nabi Adam. dan Siti Hawa di muka bumi. Ini semua mengajarka kita untuk tidak lupa dengan pendahulu kita, tidak lupa dengan jasa dan pengorbanan mereka. Wallahua’lam.

Khairurrazi Mahmud

Profil Tokoh: Presiden India DR. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam

2005-10-06T03:59:00.000-07:00

Pengantar:Ada beberapa hal yg patut dicatat dari presiden India yg satu ini.1. Dia presiden muslim kedua (ketiga?) dari negara India yg mayoritas Hindu. Walaupun dalam konteks politik India, presiden hanyalah sebagai "nominal" head of state. Krn. the real head of state held by PM. 2. Dia masih bujang (barangkali ada wanita Indonesia yg tertarik...?)3. Sangat sederhana. Rumahnya yg asli (saya lihat fotonya) hampir mirip gubuk. kendati begitu, dia setuju kesederhanaan sebagai pilihan, bukan sederhana yg terpaksa (lihat buku biografinya: Wings of Fire).4. Dia juga disebut sebagai Bapak Nuklir India ini menjadi preseden bagi muslim India yg minoritas untuk mendapat peluang yg sama di negara yg mayoritas hindu. Saya kira, ini juga berlaku di indonesia, di mana kaum minoritas juga mendapat peluang dan kesempatan kerja di birokrasi. bagi saya, bahkan, peluang minoritas di Indonesia jauh lebih besar. Tampaknya, fenomena "peluang yg samadi pemerintahan" bagi kaum minoritas ini hanya terdapat di Indonesia, India. Di barat kecenderungan semacam itu tampaknya belum ada. Saya belum pernah melihat menteri Eropa yg muslim. Atau saya salah?
Salam,

Rozi

DR. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM PRESIDENT OF INDIA
Born on 15th October 1931 at Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu, Dr. Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam, specialized in Aeronautical Engineering from Madras Institute of Technology. Dr. Kalam made significant contribution as Project Director to develop India’s first indigenous Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV-III) which successfully injected the Rohini satellite in the near earth orbit in July 1980 and made India an exclusive member of Space Club. He was responsible for the evolution of ISRO’s launch vehicle programme, particularly the PSLV configuration. After working for two decades in ISRO and mastering launch vehicle technologies, Dr. Kalam took up the responsibility of developing Indigenous Guided Missiles at Defence Research and Development Organisation as the Chief Executive of Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP). He was responsible for the development and operationalisation of AGNI and PRITHVI Missiles and for building indigenous capability in critical technol ogies through networking of multiple institutions. He was the Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister and Secretary, Department of Defence Research & Development from July 1992 to December 1999. During this period he led to the weaponisation of strategic missile systems and the Pokhran-II nuclear tests in collaboration with Department of Atomic Energy, which made India a nuclear weapon State. He also gave thrust to self-reliance in defence systems by progressing multiple development tasks and mission projects such as Light Combat Aircraft.As Chairman of Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) and as an eminent scientist, he led the country with the help of 500 experts to arrive at Technology Vision 2020 giving a road map for transforming India from the present developing status to a developed nation. Dr. Kalam has served as the Principal Scientific Advisor to the Government of India, in the rank of Cabinet Minister, from November 1999 to November 2001 and was responsible for evolving policies, strategies and missions for many development applications. Dr. Kalam was also the Chairman, Ex-officio, of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Cabinet (SAC-C) and piloted India Millennium Mission 2020.Dr. Kalam took up academic pursuit as Professor, Technology & Societal Transformation at Anna University, Chennai from November 2001 and was involved in teaching and research tasks. Above all he took up a mission to ignite the young minds for national development by meeting high school students across the country.In his literary pursuit four of Dr. Kalam’s books - "Wings of Fire", "India 2020 - A Vision for the New Millennium", "My journey" and "Ignited Minds - Unleashing the power within India" have become household names in India and among the Indian nationals abroad. These books have been translated in many Indian languages.Dr. Kalam is one of the most distinguished scientists of India with the unique honour of receiving honorary doctorates from 30 universities and institutions. He has been awarded the coveted civilian awards - Padma Bhushan (1981) and Padma Vibhushan (1990) and the highest civilian award Bharat Ratna (1997). He is a recipient of several other awards and Fellow of many professional institutions.Dr. Kalam became the 11th President of India on 25th July 2002. His focus is on transforming India into a developed nation by 2020.

Absennya Demokrasi di Dunia Islam (1)

2005-10-02T11:57:00.000-07:00

Oleh Asghar Ali Engineer, Direktur Institute of Islamic Studies,Mumbai
Alih bahasa oleh Khairurrazi*

Di sebuah acara T.V. seorang redaktur senior dari sebuah harian terkenal bertanya pada saya mengapa Islam begitu tidak demokratis? Pertanyaan itu mendorong saya menulis artikel ini. Pertanyaan itu harus dijawab. Apakah islam tidak demokratis karena berdasarkan watak ajaran yg terkandung di dalamnya? Mengapa tidak ada negara Muslim yang memiliki sistem demokrasi? Hampir semua negara Muslim dipimpin oleh raja-raja, sheikh, diktator militer atau sistem yang semi demokratis. Ini merupakan pertanyaan penting, yang harus dijawab dengan memuaskan. Pertanyaan lebih penting dalam hal ini adalah: Apakah Islam bertanggung jawab atas keadaan umat? Dapatkah sebuah agama menjadi demokratis
atau tidak demokratis? Ataukah para penganutnya yang membuatnya demikian?

Dalam pendapat penulis, agama hendaknya tidak dipahami sebagai demokratis atau tidak. Agama apapun berakar dari sebuah struktur sosial, walaupun tidak berarti ciptaan darinya. Sebuah agama memberikan sebuah visi terbentuknya sebuah masyarakat baru yg akan mentransformasikan masyarakat yg bersangkutan akan tetapi jarang berhasil secara total menghapus status quo. Berhasil atau gagalnya visi baru yang diberikan oleh sebuah agama tergantung pada seberapa kuat kepentingan yg mengontrol masyarakat di mana agama itu lahir. Semakin kuat kepentingan yang ada semakin sulit untuk merubah status quo. Hal itu terjadi bukan hanya karena kepentingan baru yang berkembang dalam masyarakat muncul berdasarkan pada visi baru. Tetapi juga karena vested interest baru juga berkembang di masyarakat Islam, seperti yg akan kita lihat dalam diskusi berikutnya. Ajaran Qur'an sangat mendukung cara dan berjalannya demokrasi. Nabi Muhammad sendiri diperintahkan oleh Allah untuk berkonsultasi dengan para Sahabat dalam berbagai persoalan dunia
(wa syawirhum yg bermakna bermusyawarahlah dengan mereka [para sahabat])

Islam lahir dalam sebuah masyarakat di mana tidak terdapat struktur politik formal atau administrasi negara. Ia secara esensial merupakan sebuah masyarakat suku (tribal) tanpa penguasa atau struktur negara formal. Tidak ada hukum tertulis, hanya adat kesukuan. Islam tidak hanya memberikan masyarakat di situ sebuah visi baru yg lebih manusiawi dan
lebih menjamin kebebasan nurani tetapi juga memberikan hukum-hukum detail baik tertulis maupun secara lisan. Nabi Muhammad memberikan hukum melalui ucapan-ucapanya, di samping yang sudah terkandung dalam Qur'an. Visi baru ini jauh dari atoritarian. Nabi sendiri esensinya seorang demokrat sejati dalam sikap kesehariannya. Beliau tidak pernah memaksakan kehendaknya pada yang lain kecuali pada hal-hal yg menyangkut agama. Beliau bahkan meminta para pengikutnya untuk tidak banyak bertanya karena jawaban Nabi nantinya akan bersifat mengikat. Nabi tidak mengijinkan siapapun untuk bersujud di hadapannya atau bahkan cuma berdiri dengan sikap hormat ketika Nabi memasuki ruangan

Absennya Demokrasi di Dunia Islam (2)

2005-10-02T11:55:00.000-07:00

Oleh Asghar Ali Engineer, Direktur Institute of Islamic Studies,Mumbai.
Alih bahasa oleh Khairurrazi*

Nabi Muhammad menunjukkan sikap respek pada harga diri manusia tanpa melihat status sosial seseorang. Perhatiannya adalah untuk membentuk sebuah masyarakat tanpa konsep hirarki sosial. Pada masa itu perhatian Nabi ini merupakan langkah revolusioner. Tidak ada masyarakat tanpa adanya hirarki sosial pada waktu itu. Bahkan demokrasi modern-pun memiliki hirarki sosialnya sendiri.

Demokrasi modern secara teoritis menyepakati adanya hak-hak persamaan pada seluruh warga negara tetapi sejumlah warga pada kenyataanya memiliki prevelese lebih dari yang lain. Visi Islam tidak mengakui privelese semacam itu. Bahkan seorang budak kulit hitam dapat mengklaim privelese yg sama sebagaimana Muslim yg lain. Bukanlah tanpa makna penunjukan Nabi atas budak Bilal yg baru dimerdekakan menjadi muazzin (tukang adzan), sebuah kehormatan yang dicemburui oleh banyak sahabat yang menikmati status tinggi di masyarakat waktu itu.

Nabi Muhammad berbuat demikian untuk memberikan contoh dan preseden positif. Masyarakat demokratis yang sebenarnya hendaknya tidak hanyak menyepakati kesempatan yang sama pada warganya dan membuat mereka sama statusnya di hadapan hukum tetapi lebih dari itu hendaknya melakukannya dalam praktek.

Pada kenyataannya warga yang memiliki privelese lebih adalah lebih memiliki persamaan dari pada warga yang kurang menikmati privelese.Sementara Islam mencoba membentuk sebuah masyarakat yang betul-betul berspirit demokratis, Nabi melakukannya dalam kehidupan sehari-hari untuk memberi teladan pada yang lain. Beliau sadar bahwa sejumlah orang akan menuntut privelese lebih dan Nabi mencoba mengurangi keinginan semacam itu. Nabi memberikan perhatian tinggi pada kelompok Ashab as-Suffa yang sangat miskin dan secara sosial berkelas marjinal akan tetapi sangat berdedikasi dalam kepentingan Islam. Nabi sendiri tidak pernah menempati posisi kekuasaan politis apapun. Nabi esensinya adalah guide spiritual yang mendapatkan respek dan penghargaan tinggi.

Konsep Ummah-nya juga sangat inklusif. Nabi memasukkan Yahudi, penyembah berhala dan Muslim di dalamnya. Beliau memberi mereka kebebasan penuh untuk mengikuti dan menjalankan kepercayaan masing-masing tanpa halangan. Ini juga merupakan pendekatan demokratik yang sangat modern.

Akan tetapi, negara-negara Muslim saat ini memperlakukan non-Muslim sebagai warga kelas dua dan tidak memberikan hak-hak yang sama. Masyarakat demokratis modern memberikan hak yang sama pada umat Islam di manapun mereka berstatus sebagai minoritas. Tetapi negara-negara Muslim, tidak semuanya, tapi cukup banyak, tidak berbuat demikian. Ini bukanlah masalah balas jasa (reciprocation) akan tetapi soal prinsip.

Apalagi Nabi sendiri telah memberikan contoh dalam hal ini. Nabi tidak pernah memberikan isyarat preseden sekecil apapun adanya perlakuan tidak adil terhadap non Muslim. Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani, ulama besar dari Darul Ulum Deoband, India, mengutip dari hadits Nabi bahwa sebuah komposit negara-bangsa sudah sesuai dengan spirit ajaran islam.

Absennya Demokrasi di Dunia Islam (3)

2005-10-02T11:53:00.000-07:00

Oleh Asghar Ali Engineer, Direktur Institute of Islamic Studies,Mumbai.
Alih bahasa Khairurrazi*

Oleh karena itu, sunnah Nabi sangat mengilhami umat Islam dalam hal ini. Sayangnya, feodalisme Islam merubah semuanya. Hirarki sosial menjadi prinsip pokok organisasi masyarakat dan baik Muslim maupun non Muslim menjadi subjek bukan warga negara yang menikmati persamaan hak. Kami akan membahas hal ini kemudian. Institusi perbudakan juga kembali diaktifkan kendatipun Islam telah memberi begitu banyak penekanan dalam mengemansipasi para budak. Konsep ketuhanan Islam adalah menghapus perbudakan. Sedangkan konsep status quo dari hirarki sosial politik yang kaku dipertahankan. Nilai-nilai asingpun menjadi bagian dari masyarakat Islam dan dilegitimasi dengan atas nama Islam.

Sebuah masyarakat baru memang dimulai dan muncul pada tahun-tahun pertama Islam. Akan tetapi, proses kemunculan masyarakat Islam ini tidak bertahan lama. Dinasti Umayyah merebut kekuasaan dan merubah masyarakat yang berspirit demokrasi menjadi sebuah hirarki feodal. Nabi Muhammad memiliki otoritas moral sangat besar tetapi tidak pernah menjadikannya sebagai kekuasaan politik formal. Nabi kemudian digantikan oleh empat Khulafa'ur'Rashidin (Arab: orang-orang yang mendapat petunjuk) mendapat julukan demikian karena mereka berusaha mengikuti visi Islam dan selalu berkonsultasi dengan umat Islam sebelum mengambil keputusan kebijakan penting. Kendatipun secara formal institusi khalifah tidaklah bisa demokratis dalam artian masyarakat modern saat ini, tetapi ia berjiwa demokratis selama tiga puluh tahun pertama masa pemerintahan empat khalifah tersebut.

Akan tetapi, selama periode ini berbagai vested interest mulai muncul dan menjerumuskan masyarakat baru itu ke dalam kekacauan politik dan kerusuhan politik ini berakibat pada terjadinya pembunuhan tiga dari empat khalifah (walaupun khalifah kedua juga terbunuh tetapi oleh seorang buruh budak karena perselisihan uang gaji). Penyebab dari kekacauan politik ini sudah dibahas secara mendalam oleh sarjana Mesir Dr. Taha Husain dalam bukunya Al-Fitnah al-Kubra (Fitnah Besar. Dia menjelaskan secara detail bagaimana masyarakat Islam terbagi menjadi berbagai kelompok, Quraish, non Quraish, Ansari, non Ansari, Umayyah dan non Umayyah, Arab, non Arab, dan lain lain.

Kepentingan ekonomis dan politis mereka bertentangan satu sama lain dan membantu menciptakan krisis besar pada awal terbentuknya masyarakat Islam. Krisis inilah yang tidak hanya berakibat pada perang sipil di mana lebih dari 100.000 Muslim terbunuh tetapi juga pada hancurnya visi sebuah masyarakat demokratik yang adil yang bernama Islam. Khalifah Ali mencoba sekuat tenaga untuk memperbaiki kembali visi Islam ini tetapi tidak berhasil dan kekuasaan politik akhirnya berpindah ke tangan Muawiyah, seorang penguasa yang penuh trik, yang merubah sistem khilafah menjadi kekuasaan dinasti dengan menunjuk anaknya Yazid sebagai penggantinya.

Dalam konteks kondisi politis dan sosial yang kacau ini Umayyah berhasil merebut kekuasaan. Mereka memindah ibukota Islam ke Damaskus di Syria yang dulunya dikuasai oleh Empirium Rumawi Timur (Bizantin) dan mengadopsi segala sistemnya, yang sangat feodalistik. Masyarakat Islam yang sangat berjiwa demokratik semakin lama semakin menjadi feodal dan hirarkis. Mu'awiyah mengadopsi sistem kerajaan dan mulai duduk di singgasana mengenakan baju kebesaran mahal serta membangun istana untuk tempat tinggalnya yang dijaga oleh sejumlah pengawal ketika dia menjadi gubernur Syria selama periode khalifah Umar. Umar mengecamnya karena telah meniru cara-cara aristokrat Byzantin. Akan tetapi, dia beralasan waktu itu dengan mengatakan bahwa di sini (Syria) tidak mungkin menjadi penguasa tanpa mengadopsi cara-cara Byzantin. Karena, menurut dia, rakyat terbiasa dengan cara itu. Dengan demikian dia telah meligitimasi gaya aristokrasi Rumawi yang sangat bertentangan dengan cara Islam dan Sunnah Nabi.

Tantangan satu-satunya datang dari cucu Nabi yang menentang otoritas Yazid yang menjadi penguasa pertama dunia Islam dengan prinsip-prinsip feodal dalam suksesi kekuasaan yang berlawanan dengan sistem elektif sebagaimana empat khalifah pertama. Ketika Hasan mengambil alih sebagai khalifah kelima setelah pembunuhan Ali di Kufa, kekuasaannya mendapat pengesahan melalui bay'ah oleh tokoh-tokoh Muslim waktu itu. Tidak ada seorangpun yang ragu melakukannya. Tetapi konspirasi dimulai oleh Mu'awiyah untuk mengacaukan kekuasaan Hasan dan akhirnya Hasan sepakat untuk menyerahkan kekuasaannya dengan persyaratan tertentu. Salah satunya adalah Mu'awiyah tidak akan menunjuk anaknya sebagai khalifah berikutnya dan menyerahkan masalah suksesi ke umat Islam untuk memutuskan. Mu'awiyah tampaknya sepakat pada persyaratan ini tetapi pada akhirnya tetap menunjuk anaknya Yazid dan di sinilah awal mula dari sistem yang oleh Maulana Maududi disebut dengan mulukiyyat (kerajaan) dalam bukunya Khilafat Aur Mulukiyyat (Khilafah dan Kerajaan).

Akan tetapi, ketika Yazid naik tahta, Husain (adik dari Hasan) menolak kekuasaan Yazid melalui bay'ah dan memutuskan untuk menentang kekuasaannya. Terdapat konspirasi untuk membunuhnya di Madina oleh pasukan Yazid dan karena itu dia meninggalkan Medinah dan pergi ke Irak sebagai respons atas permintaan rakyat Kufah untuk memimpin mereka dalam memerangi kekuasaan Yazid yang tidak sah. Akan tetapi rakyat Kufah telah mengkhianatinya sebagaimana mereka telah mengkhianati saudaranya Hasan dan ayahnya Ali. Husain dikepung oleh pasukan Yazid di Karbala dan pasukan Yazid yang besar tidak seimbang dengan para pendukung Husain yang sedikit, sebagaimana Husain sendiri, meninggal di Karbala. Dengan demikian revolusi Islam jatuh dalam bayang-bayang konter revolusi Umayyah. Nilai-nilai demokrasi dan keadilan Islam dikesampingkan dan sekarang dinasti dan penindasaan menguasai. Dinasti Umayyah memperoleh kekuasaan politik dan menjadi kelompok paling istimewa dibanding umat Islam yang lain. Sejak itu umat Islam tidak lagi sederajat dalam praktiknya, walaupun secara teori tetaplah demikian.

Absennya Demokrasi di Dunia Islam (4)

2005-10-01T13:54:00.000-07:00

Oleh: Asghar Ali Engineer, Direktur Institute of Islamic Studies, Mumbai
Alih bahasa: Khairurrazi

Demokrasi Islam sebagaimana yang berkembang pada masa Nabi dan empat khalifah pertama tidak dapat bertahan lagi. Seluruh rezim yang berkuasa baik di dunia Arab maupun di luar Arab berkarakter dinasti dan tidak ada hubungannya dengan prinsip pemilihan. Kultur politis Islam semakin lama semakin feodalistik. Mungkin itu merupakan kebutuhan historis. Mengingat banyaknya rezim feodal pada saat itu dan suatu usaha, bagaimanapun kuatnya political will, untuk menciptakan sebuah kultur politis yang demokratik tidak akan berhasil dalam kondisi dunia feodal semacam itu.
Ia dapat berhasil di tanah Arab pada masa Nabi karena dua sebab satu faktor spiritual dan dua faktor material. Faktor spiritual adalah kejujuran dan kredibilitas Nabi (beliau dikenal sebagai sadiq artinya yang jujur dan dapat dipercaya bahkan sebelum Nabi memproklamirkan kenabian dan kerasulannya pada masyarakat Makkah). Komitmennya pada terbentuknya sebuah masyarakat yang adil yang menjamin martabat dan harga diri kemanuasiaan tidak diragukan lagi.

Faktor material adalah watak kesukuan (tribal) dari Semenanjung Arabia di mana tidak produksi agrikultura dan sistem kanal yang mengharuskan adanya sebuah kekuasaan yang terpusat dan apropiasi surplus dari kaum tani. Secara faktual baik di Madinah dan di Makkah tidak terdapat administrasi pemerintahan, tidak ada polisi, tentara, pengadilan atau birokrasi atau yg mirip dengan itu. Akan tetapi ketika menyebar ke kawasan Rumawi Timur (Byzantine) dan Sasanid terdapatlah sebuah peradaban agrikultura yang kaya dengan kultur politis feodal. Dan dalam waktu tidak lama pusat perhatian islam berpindah ke kawasan yang kaya ini dan Ibukota politis didirikan di Damaskus dan Baghdad. Makkah dan Madinah menjadi kota-kota suci dan hanya memiliki signifikansi agama sedangkan signifikansi politis berpindah ke kawasan yang subur pertaniannya dengan potensi pengumpulan penghasilan negara yang tinggi.

Oleh karena itu sistem khilafah menjadi sekedar simbolik sedangkan kekuasaan dinasti feodal menjadi substantif.Para penguasa Muslim secara simbolis memangku jabatan kekhalifahan tetapi sama sekali tidak mengikuti prinsif pemilihan sama sekali. Mereka juga tidak meminta pendapat kalangan Muslim, sebagaimana yang dilakukan oleh keempat Khalifah pertama, ketika mengambil keputusan-keputusan politis. Bahkan keputusan-keputusan yang tidak Islami mendapat pengesahan dari para Ulama yg mungkin dibawah tekanan atau bujukan dan apabila ulama ini menolak mereka akan mendapat hukuman berat. Inilah mengapa Imam Ghazali menganjurkan umat Islam untuk tidak memandang wajah para penguasa semacam itu.

Masyarakat Islam setelah itu tidak pernah lagi melihat kembalinya sistem segaimana dalam periode kekhalifahan awal kendatipun terdapat sejumlah usaha oleh segolongan kaum idealis. Masyarakat Islam betul-betul terfeodalisasi. Kendatipun para penguasa di dunia Islam sering bergaya sebagai khalifah tetapi sebenarnya mereka tidak lebih dari raja-raja dan imperium yakni penguasa absolut. Perkembangan politik ini juga memiliki pengaruh pada perkembangan syariah (fiqih) Islam dalam banyak hal. Para Ulama yang memberi interpretasi pada Qur'an dan Hadith berbuat demikian karena berada di bawah pengaruh nilai-nilai feodal. Banyak dari hukum-hukum yang dihasilkan bertentangan dengan spirit Islam dan memberi justifikasi pada sistem hirarki feodal dan monarki. Sebagian kecil ulama yang melawan penguasa diisolasi dan dibuang. Sementara ulama yang berpihak pada kepentingan monarki sering disebut sebagai Ulama su' (ulama yg buruk) tetapi mereka mendapatkan kekuasaan politis.

Ulama yang berintegritas dan berkarakter tidak dapat menyelamatkan struktur politik Islam pada periode awal walaupun mereka memiliki memiliki otoritas moral lebih tinggi. Dunia islam dikuasai oleh kekuasan monarki dan raja-raja yang korup dan haus kekuasaan. Imperialisme Barat pada abad sembilan belas tidak banyak membuat perubahan karena kekuatan imperialis semakin memperkuat penguasa Muslim ini untuk kepentingan mereka sendiri. Masyarakat Islam betul-betul terfeodalisasi karena selama kekuasaan imperialis tidak ada pemimpin massa karismatik yang muncul ke permukaan di negara Muslim manapun. Bahkan Jamaluddin Afghani, figur karismatik pada abad kesembilan belas, memiliki prioritas berbeda. Dia lebih tertarik pada pan-Islamisme dan bahkan meminta bantuan dari para monarki feodal semacam Utsmaniyah untuk mengusir kekuasaan imperialis barat dari dunia Islam. Karena itu alih-alih berhasil, dia malah menjadi korban konspirasi yang dimotori oleh penguasa Utsmaniyah.

Partai Wafd dari Mesir menawarkan konsep demokrasi terbatas pada kekuasaan Inggris dan dengan adanya pergerakan demokrasi ini Mesir memiliki sistem yang berbau demokrasi saat ini. Akan tetapi, Mesir juga masih jauh dari demokrasi yang sebenarnya. Jamal Abdul Naser mempunyai visi tetapi kekuasaannya terlalu terpusat dalam rangka membawa perubahan dan reform dan bahwa sentralisasi kekuasaan mengalahkan tujuan semula. Penerusnya seperti Anwar Sadat tidak memiliki visi itu juga dan bahkan menjadi lebih otoritarian. Seluruh dunia Arab kekurangan pemimpin masal dalam kaliber apapun karena para penguasa otoritarian menggunakan kebijakan yang sangat represif dan tidak membiarkan pemimpin semacam itu muncul. Apa yang lebih mengganggu adalah bahwa para Ulama di negara-negara Arab mendukung rezim yang berkuasa dan menggunakan Islam untuk melegitimasi kekuasaan otoritarian. Pergerakan apapun yang berkaitan dengan hak asasi manusia (HAM) dikecam sebagai konspirasi Barat terhadap Islam kendatipun martabat manusia dan kebebasan nurani sangat pokok dalam ajaran Islam. Iran secara teratur mengadakan pemilu tetapi di sana terdapat juga para Ulama ortodoks yang menguasai pengadilan dan tanpa pengadilan yang bebas demokrasi akan berdampak nominal. Para pendukung Presiden Khatami yang reformis dihukum dan banyak media dengan orientasi reformis diberangus oleh pengadilan ortodoks di Iran. Mereka mengalami masa-masa suram.

Absennya Demokrasi di Dunia Islam (5)

2005-10-01T13:52:00.000-07:00

Oleh: Asghar Ali Engineer, Direktur Institute of Islamic Studies, Mumbai
Alih bahasa Khairurrazi*

Malaysia juga mengadopsi demokrasi terbatas dan Perdana Meneteri Mahathir Mohamad menganggap HAM sebagai sebuah konspirasi barat. Tidak ada kebebasan demokrasi sejati di Malaysia. Malaysia merupakan pemerintahan semi demokrasi dan semi otoritarian. Sedang Indonesia lama berada di bawah kekuasaan militer dan saat ini sudah menjalani sistem demokrasi akan tetapi sedang mengalami kekacauan politik. Indonesia membutuhkan beberapa waktu lagi bagi demokrasi untuk stabil mengingat vested interest yang kuat sedang berusaha untuk membentuk lagi kediktatorannya.

Oleh karena itu kondisi ekonomi dan sosial, yang lebih bertanggung jawab atas kurangnya demokrasi di dunia Islam dan bukan ajaran Islam. Akan tetapi, para intelektual Muslim harus berefleksi secara serius atas pertanyaan negara-negara Muslim belum bisa menampilkan demokrasi sejati kendatipun adanya klaim bahwa Islam merupakan ajaran yang paling berspirit demokratis. Tanpa demokratisasi di dunia Islam maka tidak akan ada perubahan berharga dapat diharapkan. Absennya demokrasi berarti tunduknya umat Islam dan reformasi modern tidak akan mungkin tanpa adanya pemerintahan yang demokratis.

Dan pemerintahan demokratis tidak mungkin terjadi tanpa terjaminnya kebebasan nurani (conscience), yang tidak eksis di negara Muslim manapun. Independensi berpikir sekalipun dalam hal-hal agama akan ditekan secara keras. Syariah Islam dituntut untuk dilaksanakan secara mekanis yang sering tidak mengindahkan spirit sejati keadilan dan martabat kemanusiaan. Ijtihad yang prinsip juga tidak dianjurkan dan malah dipandang aneh oleh para Ulama dengan mengatakan bahwa tidak ada seorangpun yang memiliki kualifikasi mujtahid.

Syariah Islam dikompilasi dalam suatu kondisi sosial dan politik berbeda dan kebanyakan keputusan diambil oleh para Ulama pada kondisi sosio-politis mereka dan karena itu butuh direformulasi. Keputusan-keputusan yang diambil oleh Ulama atau fuqaha (jamak dari faqih: ahli fiqih) tidak dapat dianggap sebagai wahyu. Para pakar fiqih dan ahli hukum modern perlu bekerja sama untuk merubah hukum-hukum syariah terutama di bidang mu'amalat (hubungan interpersonal). Pondasi pokok dari demokrasi adalah, sebagaimana disebut di atas, kebebasan nurani dan kebebasan nurani tidak akan mungkin tanpa memikirkan kembali isu-isu mu'amalat yang juga termasuk hubungan antara dua jenis. Hukum syariah, sebagaimana yang ada sekarang, sangatlah bias terhadap wanita sedangkan persamaan gender merupakan bagian integral dari budaya demokrasi. Sejumlah negara Muslim tidak mengijinkan wanita untuk voting dengan atas nama Islam.

Pendekatan menyeluruh dari Qur'an adalah persamaan gender tetapi syariah yang ada merefleksikan etos abad pertengahan dan wanita berada pada posisi yang terjepit. Apabila demokrasi berdiri di negara-negara Muslim maka isu-isu kewanitaan akan menjadi sangat sentral. Pergerakan wanita cukup kuat sampai detik ini di negara-negara Muslim, yang memiliki sistem yang berbau demokrasi. Para sarjana wanita dan aktifis hendak meninjau kembali isu-isu dalam syariah dan ingin mengembangkan sebuah kultur baru yang adil gender di masyarakat Muslim.

Banyak negara-negara Muslim memiliki populasi non Muslim yang substansial. Dalam pemerintahan yang demokratis adalah sangat dibutuhkan tetapi tidak cukup untuk menjamin kebebasan beragama. Non Muslim hendaknya juga dijamin kesamaan hak-hak politisnya. Minoritas Muslim menikmati hak-hak persamaan politis di sejumlah negara non Muslim atau sekuler. Hal ini harus dilakukan juga pada kalangan non Muslim di negara Muslim bukan demi balas budi akan tetapi atas dasar prinsip. Akan tetapi kebanyakan di negara Muslim bahkan umat Islam-pun tidak dapat menikmati hak-hak demokratis, apalagi non Muslim. Elektorat terpisah, apabila itu ada di negara manapun, hendaknya dihapus. Karena pola ini akan menumbuhkan praktek diskriminasi. Hendaknya dibentuk elektorat bersama baik untuk Muslim maupun non Muslim.

Yang terakhir, menghormati HAM adalah sangat perlu dalam sebuah kultur politik demokratis. Tanpa budaya HAM tidak akan ada kultur demokratis sejati. Intelektual Muslim hendaknya berjuang tanpa henti guna menjamin dihormatinya HAM untuk semua warga negara di negara-negara Islam. Kultur HAM inilah yang akan memperkokoh demokrasi dan menghapus kultur feodal yang hanya mengutamakan hak sebagian kecil orang dan mengorbankan yang lain yang lebih besar.

(Tamat)

Catatan penerjemah: Artikel ini ditulis pada April 2001

ON ABSENCE OF DEMOCRACY IN MUSLIM WORLD

2005-10-01T13:42:00.000-07:00

Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer
(Islam and Modern Age, April, 2001)

In a T.V. programme senior editor of a well-known national daily
threw a question at me why Islam is so undemocratic? It spurred me to
write this article. The question must be answered. Is Islam
undemocratic by nature of its teachings? Why no Muslim country has
democratic set up? Almost all-Muslim countries are governed either by
kings, sheikhs, military dictators or have semi-democratic set up?
This is an important question, which must be satisfactorily answered.
More important question in this respect is: Is Islam responsible for
this state of affairs of Muslims? Can any religion be democratic or
undemocratic? Or its followers make it so.
No religion, in my opinion, should be construed as democratic or
undemocratic. Any religion is rooted in a social structure, not
necessarily of its creation. A religion does give a vision of a new
society transcending the given society but hardly succeeds in totally
subverting the status quo. The new vision given by a religion
succeeds or fails depending on how powerful are the vested interests
controlling the society in which a religion is borne. Stronger the
vested interests more difficult it is to change the status quo. Not
only that new vested interests develop in the new society which comes
into existence based on new vision. New vested interests developed in
the Islamic society also, as we will see while dealing with the
subject further. The Qur'anic teachings are highly supportive of
democratic way of functioning. The Prophet (PBUH) himself was
required by Allah to consult his companions on worldly matters [wa
shawirhum i.e. consult them (your companions)].
Islam was borne in a society in which there was no formal political
structure or the state machinery. It was essentially a tribal society
without any ruler or formal state structure. It had no written laws,
only tribal customs. Islam gave to that society not only a new vision
more humane and guaranteeing freedom of conscience but also gave
detailed laws both written and oral. The Prophet of Islam gave laws
through his pronouncements, in addition to what was contained in the
Qur'an. This new vision of a society was far from being
authoritarian. The Prophet (PBUH) himself was essentially a true
democrat in his behaviour. He never imposed his opinion on others
except in matters of deen. He even discouraged his followers from
asking many questions as his pronouncements will then become binding
on them. He did not allow anyone to bow before him or even to stand
up by way of respect when he enters the room.
He showed great respect for human dignity irrespective of a perso's
social status. His intention was to set up a society without any
concept of social hierarchy. In those days it was really a
revolutionary step. No society was without social hierarchy in those
days. Even modern democracies have social hierarchy of their own.
Modern democracies theoretically accord equal rights to all citizens
but some citizens are more privileged than other citizens. The
Islamic vision admitted of no such privileges. Even a black slave
could claim same privileges as any other Muslim. It was not for
nothing that the Prophet appointed a black liberated slave Bilal to
be his moazzin (caller to the prayer), a high honour envied by many
of his companions enjoying higher status in society. The Prophet did
so to set an example. A truly democratic society should not only
accord equal opportunities to all citizens and make them equal before
law but should see that it is so in practice. In fact more p!
rivileged citizens are more equal than other less privileged
citizens. While Islam tried to set up a society truly democratic in
spirit the Prophet of Islam practised this rigorously to set an
example before others. He knew that some people will claim more
privileges and tried to discourage them from doing so. He gave great
importance to Ashab-e-Suffa who were quite poor and of low origin
socially speaking but were highly dedicated to the cause of Islam.
The Prophet himself never assumed any political powers. He was
essentially a spiritual guide who commanded a tremendous respect. His
concept of ummah was also inclusive one. He included Jews, idol
worshipers and Muslims in it. He gave them full freedom to follow
their respective faith without any constraint. This was also most
modern democratic approach. They were accorded equal rights in all
matters along with equal obligation to defend the city of Medina when
attacked. In no sense they were unequal citizens in the Medinese
society.
However, the Muslim states today treat non-Muslims as secondary
citizens and deprive them of equal rights. The modern democratic
society accords Muslims wherever they are in minority equal political
rights. But the Muslim countries, not all, but many, do not do so. It
is not the question of reciprocation but of principle. Moreover the
Prophet himself has set an example in this respect. He never gave any
hint of treating non-Muslims as less privileged in any manner.
Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani, a noted Alim from Darul Ulum Deoband,
inferred from the Prophet's sunna that a composite nation state is in
keeping with the teachings of Islam.
Thus the Prophet's sunna quite inspiring for Muslims in this respect.
Unfortunately feudalising of Islam changed all this. Social hierarchy
became the central principle of organisation of society and Muslims
and non-Muslims both became subjects rather than citizens enjoying
equal rights. We will throw more light on this as we proceed further.
The institution of slavery also got reinforced though Islam had put
so much emphasis on emancipating the slaves. The transcendent concept
of Islam was to abolish slavery. Instead the status quoits concept of
rigid social and political hierarchy remained in place. The alien
values became part of Islamic society and were legitimised by
invoking Islam.
A new society did begin to emerge in first few years of Islam.
However, the process of emergence of this society did not last long.
The Umayyads, who belonged to a clan a clan within the tribe of
Quraysh, managed to capture power and converted a proto-democratic
society into a feudal hierarchical one. The Prophet had enjoyed an
immense moral authority but he never converted it into formal
political power. He was succeeded by four Caliphs referred to as
rightly guided Caliphs as they, despite tremendous problems tried to
follow the vision of Islam and always consulted Muslims before taking
any important policy decision. Though formally it was not a
democratic society in the sense modern societies are, it was
democratic in spirit during the first thirty years of rightly guided
caliphs.
However, during this period vested interests of different kinds began
to emerge throwing the society into political turmoil and this
turmoil resulted in assassination of 3rd and fourth caliphs (though
second caliph was also assassinated but by a slave labourer about a
wage dispute). The causes of this political turmoil have been
examined at great length by an Egyptian scholar Dr.Taha Husain in his
book Al-Fitnat al-Kubra (The Great Insurrection). He throws light in
great detail how the Muslim society was divided into various groups,
Qurayshis, non-Qurayshis, Ansaris, non-Ansaris, Umayyads and
non-Umayyads, Arabs, non-Arabs and so on.
Their political and economic interests clashed with each other and
helped create great crisis in the early Islamic society. It was this
crisis which not only resulted in civil war in which more than
100,000 Muslims died but also the Islamic vision of a just democratic
society was destroyed. Hazrat Ali tried his best to restore this
vision once again but did not succeed and political power ultimately
went into the hands of Mu`awiyah, a shrewd ruler, who converted
khilafah into a dynastic rule by appointing his son Yazid as his
successor.
On account of these tumultuous social and political conditions the
Umayyads succeeded in capturing power. They shifted the capital to
Damascus in Syria formerly ruled by the Byzantine Empire and adopted
Byzantine ways, which were thoroughly feudal. The Islamic society
which was quite democratic in spirit became feudal and hierarchical
through and through. Mu`awiyah had adopted Byzantinian royal ways and
began to sit on throne and wear expensive clothes and constructed
palace for himself to live in and made courtiers to stand with folded
hands before hi when he was governor of Syria during Hazrat Umar s
time. Hazrat Umar had even admonished him for adopting Byzantinian
royal ways. However, he got away by saying that in this part it will
not be possible to rule without adopting the Byzantinian ways. The
people are used to those ways. Thus he legitimised his adoption of
royal ways in flagrant contradiction to Islamic ways and Prophet's
sunnah.
The only challenge came from the grandson of the Prophet who
challenged the authority of Yazid who became the first ruler of
Islamic world by virtue of feudal principle of succession rather than
elective [principle like the first four caliphs. When Imam Hasan took
over as fifth Caliph after assassination of Hazrat Ali in Kufa his
assumption of power was endorsed through bay`ah by all prominent
Muslims of the time. No one hesitated to do so. But soon conspiracies
began by Mu`awiyah to destabilise his rule and at last he agreed to
abdicate in Mu`awiya s favour on certain conditions. One of the
conditions was that he will not appoint his son as next caliph and
leave the matter to Muslims to decide. Mu`awiya apparently agreed to
this condition but ultimately nominated his son Yazid and this was
beginning of what Maulana Maududi calls mulukiyyat in his book
Khilafat Aur Mulukiyyat.
However, When Yazid ascended the throne Imam Husain refused to
endorse his assumption of power through bay`ah and decided to oppose
his rule. There was conspiracy to assassinate him in Madina by Yazid
s forces and hence he left Madina and went to Iraq in response to
Kufan people to lead them in fight against illegitimate rule of
Yazid. However, the people of Kufa betrayed him as they had betrayed
his illustrious father and brother. Imam Husain was besieged by Yazid
s forces in Karbala and his mighty forces were no match for Imam
Husain's handful supporters who, like the Imam himself, were all
martyred in Kerbala. Thus Islamic revolution came under the shadow of
Umayyad counter-revolution. The Islamic values of democracy and
justice were pushed aside and now dynastic rule and oppression ruled
the roost. Umayyads came to acquire a political clout and became most
privileged people as against other Muslims. All believers were no
more equal in practice though in theory they conti!
nued to be so.
The Islamic democracy as prevailed in the days of the Holy Prophet
and the four caliphs could not be revived again. All succeeding
regimes in the Arab as well as non-Arab world were dynastic and had
nothing to do with elective principle. Islamic political culture got
more and more feudalised. Perhaps it was historical necessity. There
were feudal regimes all around and an attempt, howsoever earnest, to
create a democratic political culture could not have succeeded in
such feudal universe. It could succeed in Arabia of the Prophet's
time for two reasons one spiritual and another material. The
spiritual reason was the Prophet's sincerity and truthfulness (he was
known as sadiq and amin i.e. truthful and trustworthy even before he
proclaimed his revelatory message to the people of Mecca). His
commitment to a just society ensuring human dignity was beyond any
ken of doubt.
The material reason was tribal nature of Arabian Peninsula where
there was no agricultural production and canal system requiring a
centralised rule and appropriation of surplus from peasantry. In fact
both in Mecca and Madina no governmental machinery existed no police
force, no army, judiciary or bureaucracy of any kind at all. But when
Islam spread to Byzantinian and Sassanid areas a rich agricultural
civilisation existed there with feudal political culture. And soon
the centre of gravity of Islam shifted to these agriculturally rich
areas and political Capitals were established in Damascus and
Baghdad. Mecca and Madina became holy cities of Islam and retained
only religious significance and politically lost out to
agriculturally fertile areas with more revenue gathering
potentialities.
Thus khilafah became merely symbolic and feudal dynastic rule became
substantive in nature. The Muslim rulers symbolically assumed
caliphal robes but did not adhere to its elective principle at all.
Nor did they consult Muslims, like the earlier for Caliphs, while
taking policy decisions. Even their un-Islamic decisions were got
endorsed by the Ulama either through coercion or inducement and if
they refused they were severely persecuted. This is why Imam Ghazzali
advises Muslims not to see the face of such rulers.
`The Islamic society thereafter never saw the return of early
Caliphate period despite several attempts by idealists. Muslim
society was thoroughly feudalised. Though the rulers in Islamic world
often styled themselves as caliphs but in fact they were kings and
emperors i.e. absolute rulers. These political developments also had
its impact on Islamic jurisprudence in many ways. The `Ulama, who
interpreted the Qur'an and hadith did so under the influence of
feudal values. Many of them went against the spirit of Islam and
justified the feudal hierarchy and monarchical system. The few who
resisted were isolated and lost out. The `Ulama who sided with
monarchy were often referred to as `Ulama-i-su i.e. bad `Ulama but
they wielded political clout.
The `Ulama with integrity and character could not save early
political structure of Islam though they had greater moral authority.
The Islamic world was ruled by corrupt and power hungry monarchs and
kings. The western imperialism in nineteenth century could not make
much difference as the imperialist powers reinforced these Muslim
rulers for their own selfish interests. The Islamic society was so
thoroughly feudalised that even during the imperialist rule no
charismatic mass leader emerged on the scene in any Muslim country.
Even Jamaluddin Afghani, a charismatic figure in nineteenth century,
had different priorities. He was more interested in pan-Islam and
even wanted to take help from feudal monarchies like the Ottomans to
overthrow the western imperialist powers from Islamic world. Thus
rather than succeeding he became victim of conspiracies hatched by
Ottomans.
The Wafd party of Egypt did throw a limited democratic challenge to
the British rule and thanks to this democratic movement Egypt has a
semblance of democracy today. However, it is also far from real
democracy. Jamal Abd al-Nasir had a vision but he too centralised
power in order to bring changes and reforms and that centralisation
of power defeated that very purpose. His successors like Sadat did
not have that vision also and became even more authoritarian.
The entire Arab world lacks any mass leader of any calibre as the
authoritarian rulers use highly repressive policies and do not allow
any such leader to emerge. What is more disturbing is that the `Ulama
in these countries are supporting the ruling establishment and using
Islam to legitimise the authoritarian rule. Any movement for human
rights is condemned as western conspiracy against Islam though human
dignity and freedom of conscience is central to the teachings of
Qur'an. Iran has been holding regular elections but there too the
orthodox `Ulama have their stranglehold over judiciary and without
free judiciary democracy remains nominal. Khatami s supporters who
are reformists are being persecuted and many papers with reformist
orientation are being shut down by the orthodox judiciary in Iran.
They are undergoing harrowing times.
Malaysia too has limited democracy and Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohammaed dubs human rights as a western conspiracy. There is no real
democratic freedom in Malaysia. Malaysia s is semi-democratic
semi-authoritarian political set up. Indonesia remained for long
under military rule and has now come under democratic spell but is
undergoing a great political turmoil. It will take quite sometime for
democracy to stabilise as powerful vested interests are out to
sabotage it to re-establish their dictatorship.
It is thus social and economic conditions, which are more responsible
for lack of democracy in the Islamic world and not Islamic teachings.
However, the Muslim intellectuals must reflect seriously on the
question as to why still Muslim countries have not been able to usher
in true democracy despite the claim that Islam is most democratic in
spirit. Without democratising the Muslim world no worthwhile changes
can be ushered in. Absence of democracy means subjugation of Muslim
masses and modern reforms will not be possible without ushering in
democratic governance.
And democratic governance is not possible without ensuring freedom of
conscience, which does not exist in any Muslim country worth the
name. Any independence of thinking even in religious matters is
violently suppressed. The Islamic shari`ah is sought to be enforced
mechanically completely overlooking its real spirit of justice and
human dignity. The principle of ijtihad is also discouraged by the
`Ulama saying there is no one having that qualification.
The Islamic shari`ah was compiled in a different social and political
environs and most of the inferences were drawn by the `Ulama in their
own socio-political conditions and hence needs to be reformulated.
The inferences drawn by the `Ulama or fuqaha cannot be treated as
divine. The expert jurists and modern lawyers need to come together
to change some of the shari`ah laws in the sphere of what is called
mu`amalat (i.e. interpersonal relations). The very foundational
principle of democracy is, as pointed out above, freedom of
conscience and freedom of conscience is not possible without
re-thinking issues of mu`amalat which also include relations between
the two sexes. The shari`ah laws, as they obtain today, are heavily
loaded against women and sexual equality is an integral part of
democratic culture. Some of the Muslim countries do not permit women
to vote in the name of Islam.
The overall approach of the Qur'an is of sexual equality but the
shari`ah reflects the medieval ethos and women are at a disadvantage.
If democracy is ushered in, in Muslim countries women s issues will
become quite central. Women s movements are strong even today in
those Muslim countries, which have some semblance of democracy. Women
scholars and activists would like to re-think issues in shari`ah and
evolve a new gender just culture in Muslim societies.
Many Muslim countries have substantial non-Muslim populations. In
democratic governance it is necessary but not enough to ensure
freedom of religion. The non-Muslims should also be ensured equal
democratic and political rights. Muslim minorities enjoy equal
political rights in several of non-Muslim or secular countries. This
must be ensured to non-Muslims in Muslim countries not for the sake
of reciprocation but on principle. However, in most of the Muslim
countries even Muslims do not enjoy democratic rights, let alone
non-Muslims. Separate electorate, if it exists in any country, should
also be done away with. It breeds discriminatory practices. There
should be a joint electorate for all Muslims or non-Muslims.
Lastly, respect for human rights is highly necessary in a democratic
political culture. Without human rights culture there cannot be a
truly democratic culture. Muslim intellectuals should ceaselessly
strive to ensure human rights for all citizens in Islamic countries.
It is this human rights culture which will strengthen democratic
forces and do away with feudal culture which privileges some people
over others.

Mengenal Islam Syiah

2005-10-01T13:25:00.000-07:00

Oleh Khairurrazi

Syi’ah adalah nama untuk setiap orang yang lebih menyukai Ali R.A dari pada khalifah-khalifah yang sebelumnya ( Abu Bakar R.A, Umar R.A dan Usman R.A ) dan beri’tikad bahwa ahlul bait (Keluarga nabi Muhammad S.A.W) lebih berhak menjabat sebagai khalifah. Jumlah
pengikut golongan syiah lebih kurang 10 % dari jumlah seluruh umat Islam.

Golongan Syi’ah muncul di Mesir pada masa akhir kekhalifahan yang ketiga
(Usman R.A) dan kemudian terus tumbuh dan berkembang pada masa khalifah Ali
R.A. Pengikut-pengikut golongan ini mempunyai pandangan-pandangan yang berbeda
terhadap derajat Ali r.a dan keturunannya. Diantara mereka ada yang
disebut dengan Al-Mu’tadilun (golongan pertengahan) yaitu mereka yang hanya mengutamakan Ali R.A dari sahabat-sahabat yang lain tanpa mengkafirkan satu orang pun, dan juga
tidak mendudukkan Ali R.A pada derajat suci yang lebih tinggi dari derajat
manusia.

Syi’ah juga berpandangan bahwa imamah (kepemimpinan) tidak
termasuk dalam urusan kemaslahatan umat, artinya pemimpin tidak dipilih melalui
pemilihan umum, akan tetapi nabilah yang harus menentukan siapa yang berhak
menjadi seorang imam. Dan seorang imam menurut golongan syiah adalah ma’sum yang terlindung dari dosa-dosa kecil dan juga besar.

Ada beberapa golongan Syiah. Diantaranya adalah: As Sabiyyah, Al Ghurobiyah, Al Kaisaniyyah, Al Karbiyyah, Al Hasyimiyah, Al Bayaniyah, Al Harbiyah, Az Zaidiyah (golongan ini adalah golongan syiah yang ajarannya
paling mendekati Ahli Sunnah wal Jamaah, yang berbasis di Yaman dengan
jumlah populasi 40 %), dan Al Isna ‘Asyariyah (golongan syiah imamiyah yang paling
mashur dan umumnya syi’ah yang ada sekarang di dunia adalah dari golongan ini, seperti di Iraq yang
mencapai populasi 60% dari jumlah penduduk, Pakistan, India dan negara-negara lainnya di
timur tengah).