Western Occupation vs Islamic Conquests

Western Occupation under colonialism

• Iraqi death toll. 650,000 Muslims killed in Iraq since the American-led invasion
• Haditha Massacre. 24 Iraqi men, women and children executed by US Marines.
• Ishaqi Massacre. US troops execute 11 Iraqi's - five children and four women in the same house.
• Majat-al-Kabir Massacre. British troops torture, mutilate and execute 20 Iraqi captives.
• Kenyan Rapes. British troops stationed in Kenya accused of raping over 650 women over the past 20 years.
• Okinawa Rapes. Curfew imposed on US troops after US Marine rapes a 14-year-old Japanese girl. In 1995 a 12-year-old Japanese girl was gang raped by US troops stationed in Okinawa.
• Somalia. Belgian UN troops photographed themselves roasting a Somalia boy alive.
• Srebrenica Massacre. Dutch UN troops handover Srebrenica to the Serbs so they can massacre 8000 Muslims
• Jenin Massacre. Israeli troops massacre over 500 Palestinian refugees in Jenin.

Khalid Nisaif Jassim whose pregnant sister was shot by US troops as she was rushed to hospital in Samarra summed up western occupation when he said, "God take revenge on the Americans...They have no regard for our lives.

Islamic Conquests under the Khilafah

Abu Yusuf (ra) in his classical book ‘Kitab Al-Kharaj' gives the following report of the Islamic Conquest of Syria.

After getting on peaceful terms with the people of Syria and collecting the dues of the Jizya and the Kharaj, news reached Abu ‘Ubeida that the Byzantines had amassed their troops to attack him. The effect of this was great on Abu ‘Ubeida and the Muslims. He sent messages to the rulers of cities with whose citizens he had made peace, asking them to return to their subjects the paid dues of the Jizya and Kharaj with an instruction to tell them: ‘We hereby return to you the money you have paid us, because of the news of the enemy troops amassed to attack us, but, if God grants us victory against the enemy, we will keep up to the promise and covenant between us.' When this was delivered to the dhimmi and their money returned to them, they told the Muslims: ‘May God bring you back to us and grant you victory over them!'


Moulding People into One Ummah

The Messenger of Allah (saw) passed away after the entire Arabian Peninsula had entered into the fold of Islam and polytheism had been abolished. The Peninsula was under the Islamic domain, ruled comprehensively by Islam according to its ‘Aqeedah and the system that emanated from it. He (saw)died only after Allah (swt) had perfected the Deen, completed His favour unto the Muslims and chose for them Islam as that Deen. This included the invitation of neighbouring nations and people to Islam by sending envoys to their kings and rulers as well as by dispatching expeditions to raid the Roman frontiers of Mu’tah and Tabuk.

Then came the Khulafah al-Rashidun, and the conquests continued. Iraq was inhabited by a mixture of Arabs and Persians who professed the faiths of the Christians, Mazdakyya and Zoroastrians and this was the first country to be conquered. Persia followed next and al-Sham after that. Persia was inhabited by Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians and ruled over by the Persians while al-Sham was a Roman colony where the Roman culture and Christianity were predominant. Syrians, Armenians, Jews, Arabs and a few Romans lived there. Egypt was conquered after this and it too was inhabited by a mixture of people, such as the Copts, Jews and Romans. North Africa followed suit and this was where the Berbers lived under Roman dominance. Along came the Ummayads and they conquered Sind, Khawarizm and Samarqand, joining them to the Islamic State in the process. Al-Andalus was then conquered and became a Wilayah of the Islamic State.

The inhabitants of these countries varied in the ethnicity, language, religion, traditions, customs, laws and culture. They naturally differed from each other in mentality and attitude. Therefore, the process of moulding these countries together and of uniting them into one single Ummah, adopting the same Deen, language, culture and laws was a colossal task. Success would be a tremendous and extraordinary achievement. This happened solely through Islam and was only achieved by the Islamic State. Once those people were identified by the banner of Islam and ruled by the Islamic State. They became a single Ummah, which is the Islamic Ummah. This feat was due to the effect of Islamic rule and Islamic ‘Aqeedah.

Many factors led to the successful moulding of these disparate people into one Ummah, the most important of which were the following four factors:

1) The teachings of Islam.
2) The cohabitation of the Muslims with the liberated people in their daily life and work.
3) The quick embracing of Islam by the people of the conquered countries.
4) The radical change in the life of those who embraced Islam and their transformation from a dismal situation to a better one.

The teachings of Islam oblige Muslims to call for Islam and spread its guidance wherever and whenever possible. This necessitates Jihad and the conquest of other countries in order to enable people to understand it and contemplate the truthfulness of its rules. It also gives the people the choice between embracing Islam or retaining their faith if they so wished, provided that they submit to its rules related to matters of transactions and penal code.

This last point is important because it would develop harmony in the people’s actions and dealings once the system and rules that deal with their problems became unified, and it would also serve to make the non-Muslims feel like Muslims by being part of the society, sharing the same system, enjoying the peace of mind and the guardianship of the State.

The teachings of Islam necessitate that the ruled people should be looked upon from a human point of view and not a racial, tribal or sectarian one.

Therefore, the Islamic laws related to social and penal matters must be equally implemented upon every citizen, with no difference between the Muslims or non-Muslims.

Allah (saw) says in Surah al-Ma’idah,

“Do not let hatred of others lead you away from justice, but adhere to justice, for that is closer to awareness of Allah. Be mindful of Allah: Allah is well aware of all that you do.” [TMQ 5:8]

All people are equal in the eyes of the law. The ruler looks after the people’s affairs and rules over them. The judge settles people’s disputes without any prejudice. He looks upon them from a human point of view with the aim of solving their problems and settling their disputes. The ruling system in Islam introduces true unity and equality between the different regions of the State.

Islam commands the rulers to guarantee the basic needs of all the Wilayat of the State with grants provided by the treasury, regardless of the amount of revenues being collected from each Wilayah, and regardless of whether these levies cover the expenditure or not. Islam commands a single financial policy by collecting levies for the treasury from all the Wilayat, thus helping to mould the conquered countries into Wilayat and making them into one State. This is what the Islamic ruling system would and did inevitably achieve.

The mixing of the Muslim with the indigenous people was one of the major factors that led to those people entering Islam and integrating with other Muslims. After conquering a country, the Muslims would take up residence there and begin teaching the people Islam and Islamic culture. They lived in neighbouring houses, they shared in all of life’s affairs and became subjects of one country, being ruled by the same laws. There never existed two different segregated communities divided into conquerors and conquered, winners and the defeated. They were all citizens of the State who helped each other in their daily affairs. The conquered people looked upon the rulers as being a different Moulding People into one Ummah type of people whom they had never encountered before. They witnessed the equality with which they treated them by placing themselves on the same level and serving them and managing their affairs. They experienced fine treatment by rulers of high qualities and this made them adherent towards the rulers and towards Islam. The rulers and other Muslims would marry women from the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), eat their slaughtered meat and their food. This served as an incentive for them to enter Islam because they witnessed the effect of Islam through the rulers and saw the light of Islam through the system being implemented upon them. As a result, these people became integrated and constituted a single Ummah.

The entering of the indigenous people into Islam was not limited to a time period or a country. The people of each country embraced Islam en masse. People continued to enter into Islam until most of them were Muslims, and thus Islam was not merely confined to Muslim conquerors. By entering into Islam, the people of the conquered countries integrated with the conquerors and became one single Ummah.

The comprehensive change that Islam caused in those who embraced it led to the raising of the intellectual level of those new Muslims. This developed in them the Islamic ‘Aqeedah which became an ideological basis upon which all concepts were founded and measured. As a result, Islam took them from an emotional based belief (faith) to a rationally founded belief. It transformed them from the worship of idols, icons, other human beings, and fire, and the belief in the trinity and other similar types of worship, which led to a steep decline in the intellectual level, to the worship of Allah (swt), which led and will continue to lead to the establishment of an enlightened mind. Islam made them believe in the Hereafter and led them to comprehend it in the way that the Qur’an and the Sunnah have presented it and the reward and punishment in it.

So they conceived of it as being real and this led them to acquire a true meaning of this life thus being the path to another happier and eternal life. They held life with open arms and they did not neglect it. They took its means and enjoyed the pleasures and wealth that Allah (swt) - the One who provided the right criteria and perceptions of life.

Prior to the advent of Islam, their criterion of life was based on personal interest as the only controls to perform any action. After the acceptance of Islam, the criterion of their actions changed and came to be based on what is Halal and what is Haram. This criterion became the driving force behind their actions, and its guidelines were according to what Allah (swt) had commanded and prohibited. The aim of their actions became attaining Allah’s pleasure.

The value of the action became the objective behind the performance of the action. It would be spiritual if it were prayer or Jihad; material if it were buying or selling; moral if it was a trust or an act of compassion; humanitarian if one was being assisted in a crisis, etc. People began differentiating between the motive behind the action and the value of the action. As a result, their conception of life became different from their previous one. It became the true conception about the life measured by a criterion that Islam had set, this being the commands of Allah (swt).

Islam gave the people a true meaning of happiness. Happiness had been, in their original view, the satisfaction of their instincts and organic needs. It came to be transformed into gaining the pleasure of Allah (swt). This entails true happiness because true happiness means total and permanent peace of mind and this can never be achieved merely through satisfying the human desires and acquiring material pleasures. It can only be achieved by obtaining the pleasure of the Lord of the Universe. This is how Islam affected the viewpoint of the people who embraced it.

Their viewpoint about life and the actions which they performed in this life changed. Their order of priorities also changed, some went up in value and others came down. Life to the human being was at the top of his list of priorities to begin with and the ideology came second. Then Islam came and reversed the situation so that the ideology came to the top of the human being’s priorities in life. As a result of this, the Muslims began to devote their lives to the service of Islam because they correctly considered that Islam was more precious than life and it was only a natural corollary for the Muslim to endure hardship and sacrifice in the way of Islam. Life’s matters came to be placed in their appropriate order of priority. Life became honourable and dignified and the Muslim acquired a permanent peace of mind once he set his ultimate objective to that being the pleasure of Allah (swt). Moulding People into one Ummah

The new Muslims’ concept of the highest ideal changed therein. In the past the people had different and ever changing ideals. Now they acquired the one and only ultimate objective. This resulted in the changing of things that mattered to them and in changing the definition of virtue. The basis of virtues formerly included things like personal courage, individual decency and respectability, sectarian backing, boasting about wealth and noble descent, generosity to the point of extravagance, faithfulness to the tribe or clan, mercilessness in revenge and other similar acts. Islam changed all that. It made all of these qualities trivial, which the human could take or leave according to Allah’s decrees, not according to the benefits they generated, nor to the pride or prestige which they entailed, nor because they were traditions or customs or a heritage one had to preserve. Islam mandated the submission to Allah’s orders only. Therefore, Islam enjoined the submitting of the individual, tribal, popular, and national interests to the commands of Islam only.

This is how Islam transformed the mentalities and attitudes of the people who embraced it. It changed their personalities and their evaluation of man, life and the universe. It completely altered their criteria concerning all of life’s matters. People began realizing that life held a special meaning which was perfection and nobleness. They acquired a supreme ideal which was securing the pleasure of Allah (swt), and that was the happiness which they vigorously pursued. Therefore, they became different creatures from those which they had once been.

These four major factors helped to detach all the people who embraced Islam from their former circumstances. Their concepts and visions of life became unified into one concept and one vision. The management of their affairs sprang from that concept. Their interests also became unified and they became one interest, i.e. the interest of Islam. Their goals in life became a single goal, which was the spreading of Allah’s word. In total, the integration of these people into Islam was inevitable and they eventually became a single Ummah, the Islamic Ummah.

The above article is an extract from the book Islamic State by Taqiudeen an-Nabhani. Download the full book here.

InSiDen MoNas dan PeCah BeLah ALa RAND CorPoRaTion

(Civil Democratic Islam, Parters, Resources, and Strategies; By Cheryl Benard)
Syabab.Com - Upaya politik adu domba di negeri ini mulai nampak. Terutama setelah terjadinya insiden Monas. Pembagian umat Islam menjadi radikalis dan kaum moderat menguak di beberapa media. Demikian juga suara kaum liberalis yang mengatasnamakan ham, pluralisme dan kebebasan bak pahlawan. Sedangkan para aktivis Islam dilabeli radikal. Skenario global asing dalam memecahbelah umat Islam di negeri ini semakin nyata. Tujuannya tiada lain untuk melenyapkan Islam di muka bumi ini. Karena Islam telah menjadi ancaman bagi Amerika, baik secara hostility maupun capabilty-nya. Berikut sebuah analisis politik adu domba ala Rand Corporation. [Pengantar Redaksi]

Adanya politik adu domba di balik insiden Monas semakin menguat. Pernyataan Ketua Umum PBNU Hasyim Muzadi mengingatkan pihak-pihak tertentu untuk tidak melibatkan NU menyusul insiden Monas 1 Juni. “NU akan memberikan sanksi kepada siapa pun yang melakukan provokasi,” tegasnya.

Hasyim menyesalkan penggunaan dan pelibatan nama NU dan kelompok NU dalam masalah ini. “Karena relevansinya tidak ada antara NU dan Monas, NU dan FPI. Tapi, kenapa lalu ditulis korban itu adalah orang NU?” ujar Ketua PBNU Hasyim Muzadi dalam pernyataan tertulis pada detikcom, Selasa (3/6/2008).

KH Hasyim Muzadi juga mengingatkan pelibatan orang-orang NU yang menjadikan NU sebagai pihak yang juga terlibat dalam bentrok fisik itu. “Ini tidak boleh terjadi dan harus dicegah. Bentrok fisik sangat merugikan. Kita ingin menyelesaikan masalah Monas, bukan memperluas masalah itu,” tegasnya.

Upaya mengadu domba antara NU dan ormas Islam lain seperti FPI memang sangat terasa. Tampak dari reaksi warga NU diberbagai daerah yang mendatangi markas FPI. Konflik horizontal pun dikhawatirkan meluas di daerah-daerah.

Tidak hanya itu , perluasan insiden Monas juga tampak dari upaya membangun opini seakan-akan lasyar Islam menyerang kelompok memperingati hari kesaktian Pancasila. Serangan ini dianggap ancaman terhadap Pancasila, ideologi negara, dan pada gilirannya dianggap merupakan ancaman terhadap negara.

Upaya adu domba yang konflik horisontal ini tidak bisa dilepaskan dari grand-strategi negara-negara Imperialis untuk menghancurkan umat Islam dan kekuatan Islam. Untuk itu, negara-negara Imperialis seperti AS memanfaatkan LSM-LSM komprador yang menjadi kaki tangannya untuk memprovokasi konflik.

Campur tangan asing tampak dari kecaman kedubes AS terhadap insiden Monas. Kedubes AS di Indonesia mengeluarkan siaran pers yang mengutuk aksi kekerasan oleh FPI. AS menilai, aksi itu berdampak serius bagi kebebasan beragama dan dapat menimbulkan masalah keamanan. Namun, pernyataan Kedubes AS itu dinilai anggota Fraksi PKS di DPR, Soeripto, sebagai bentuk campur tangan AS dalam masalah dalam negeri. ”Itu tidak etis. Bahasa kasarnya intervensi. Seakan-akan pemerintah kita yang lemah,” katanya.

Grands strategi ini bisa terlihat dengan jelas dari rekomendasi Rand Corporation yang merupakan think-thank neo-conservative AS yang banyak mendukung kebijakan Gedung Putih. Dalam rekomendasi Cheryl Benard dari Rand Corporation yang berjudul CIVIL DEMOCRATIC SILAM , PARTERS ,RESOURCES, AND STRATEGIES secara detil diungkap upaya untuk memecah belah umat Islam.

Strategi: Pecah Belah Kelompok Islam

Langkah pertama melakukan klasifikasi terhadap umat Islam berdasarkan kecendrungan dan sikap politik mereka terhadap Barat dan nilai-nilai Demokrasi.

Pertama: Kelompok Fundamentalis : menolak nilai-nilai demokrasi dan kebudayaan Barat kontemporer. Mereka menginginkan sebuah negara otoriter yang puritan yang akan dapat menerapkan Hukum Islam yang ekstrem dan moralitas. Mereka bersedia memakai penemuan dan teknologi modern untuk mencapai tujuan mereka.

Kedua: Kelompok Tradisionalis: ingin suatu masyarakat yang konservatif. Mereka mencurigai modernitas, inovasi, dan perubahan.

Ketiga: Kelompok Modernis : ingin Dunia Islam menjadi bagian modernitas global. Mereka ingin memodernkan dan mereformasi Islam dan menyesuaikannya dengan zaman.

Keempat: Kelompok Sekularis : ingin Dunia Islam untuk dapat menerima pemisahan antara agama dan negaradengan cara seperti yang dilakukan negara-negara demokrasi industri Barat, dengan agama dibatasi pada lingkup pribadi.

Strategi Belah Bambu dan Adu Domba

Setelah membagi-bagi umat Islam atas empat kelompok itu, langkah berikutnya yang penting yang direkomendasi Rand Corporation adalah politik belah bambu. Mendukung satu pihak dan menjatuhkan pihak lain, berikutnya membentrokkan antar kelompok tersebut. Upaya itu tampak jelas dari upaya membentrokkan antara NU yang dikenal tradisionalis dengan ormas Islam yang Barat sering disebut Fundamentalis seperti FPI, HTI, atau MMI.

Hal ini dirancang sangat detil. Berikut langkah-langkahnya :

Pertama: Support the modernists first (mendukung kelompok Modernis)

• Menerbitkan dan mengedarkan karya-karya mereka dengan biaya yang disubsidi.
• Mendorong mereka untuk menulis bagi audiens massa dan bagi kaum muda.
• Memperkenalkan pandangan-pandangan mereka dalam kurikulum pendidikan Islam.
• Memberikan mereka suatu platform publik
• Menyediakan bagi mereka opini dan penilaian pada pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang fundamental dari interpretasi agama bagi audiensi massa dalam persaingan mereka dengan kaum fundamentalis dan tradisionalis, yang memiliki Web sites, dengan menerbitkan dan menyebarkan pandangan-pandangan mereka dari rumah-rumah, sekolah-sekolah, lembaga-lembaga, dan sarana yang lainnya.
• Memposisikan sekularisme dan modernisme sebagai sebuah pilihan “counterculture” bagi kaum muda Islam yang tidak puas.
• Memfasilitasi dan mendorong kesadaran akan sejarah pra-Islam dan non-Islam dan budayannya, di media dan di kurikulum dari negara-negara yang relevan.
• Membantu dalam membangun organisasi-organisasi sipil yang independent, untuk mempromosikan kebudayaan sipil (civic culture) dan memberikan ruang bagi rakyat biasa untuk mendidik diri mereka sendiri mengenai proses politik dan mengutarakan pandangan-pandangan mereka.

Kedua, Support the traditionalists against the fundamentalists (Mendukung kaum tradisionalis dalam menentang kaum fundamentalis). Langkah-langkah yang dilakukan antara lain :

• Menerbitkan kritik-kritik kaum tradisionalis atas kekerasan dan ekstrimisme yang dilakukan kaum fundamentalis; mendorong perbedaan antara kaum tradisionalis dan fundamentalis.
• Mencegah aliansi antara kaum tradisionalis dan kaum fundamentalis.
• Mendorong kerja sama antara kaum modernis dan kaum tradisionalis yang lebih dekat dengan kaum modernis.
• Jika memungkinkan, didik kaum tradisionalis untuk mempersiapkan diri mereka
• untuk mampu melakukan debat dengan kaum fundamentalis. Kaum fundamentalis
• secara retorika seringkali lebih superior, sementara kaum tradisionalis melakukan praktek politik „Islam pinggiran” yang kabur . Di tempat-tempat seperti di Asia Tengah, mereka mungkin perlu untuk dididik dan dilatih dalam Islam ortodoks untuk mampu mempertahankan pandangan mereka.
• Menambah kehadiran dan profil kaum modernis pada lembaga-lembaga tradisionalis.
• Melakukan diskriminasi antara sektor-sektor tradisionalisme yang berbeda. Mendorong orang-orang dengan ketertarikan yang lebih besar atas modernisme, seperti pada Mazhab Hanafi, lawan yang lainnya. Mendorong mereka untuk membuat isu opini-opini agama dan mempopulerkan hal itu untuk memperlemah otoritas dari penguasa yang terinspirasi oleh paham Wahhabi yang terbelakang. Hal ini berkaitan dengan pendanaan. Uang dari Wahhabi diberikan untuk mendukung Mazhab Hambali yang konservatif. Hal ini juga berkaitan dengan pengetahuan. Bagian dari Dunia Islam yang lebih terbelakang tidak sadar akan kemajuan penerapan dan tafsir dari Hukum Islam.
• Mendorong popularitas dan penerimaan atas Sufisme

Ketiga, Confront and oppose the fundamentalists (Mengkonfrontir dan menentang kaum fundamentalis). Langkah-langkahnya antara lain :

• Menentang tafsir mereka atas Islam dan menunjukkan ketidak akuratannya.
• Mengungkap keterkaitan mereka dengan kelompok-kelompok dan aktivitas-aktiviats illegal.
• Mengumumkan konsekuensi dari tindakan kekerasan yang mereka lakukan.
• Menunjukkan ketidak mampuan mereka untuk memerintah, untuk mendapatkan perkembangan positif atas negara-negara mereka dan komunitas-komunitas mereka.
• Mengamanatkan pesan-pesan ini kepada kaum muda, masyarakat tradisionalis yang alim, kepada minoritas kaum muslimin di Barat, dan kepada wanita.
• Mencegah menunjukkan rasa hormat dan pujian akan perbuatan kekerasan dari kaum Fundamentalis, ekstrimis dan teroris. Kucilkan mereka sebagai pengganggu dan pengecut, bukan sebagai pahlawan.
• Mendorong para wartawan untuk memeriksa isu-isu korupsi, kemunafikan, dan tidak bermoralnya lingkaran kaum fundamentalis dan kaum teroris.
• Mendorong perpecahan antara kaum fundamentalis.

Keempat, Secara selektif mendukung kaum sekuler:

• Mendorong pengakuan fundamentalisme sebagai suatu musuh bersama, mematahkan aliansi dengan kekuatan-kekuatan anti Amerika berdasarkan hal-hal seperti nasionalisme dan ideologi kiri.
• Mendorong ide bahwa agama dan Negara juga dapat dipisahkan dalam Islam dan bahwa Hal ini tidak membahayakan keimanan tapi malah akan memperkuatnya. Pendekatan manapun atau kombinasi pendekatan manapun yang diambil, kami sarankan bahwa hal itu dilakukan dengan sengaja dan secara hati-hati, dengan mengetahui beban simbolis dari isu-isu yang pasti; konsekuensi dari penyesuaian ini bagi pelaku-pelaku Islam lain, termasuk resiko mengancam atau mencemari kelompok-kelompok atau orang-orang yang sedang kita berusahah bantu; dan kesempatan biaya-biaya dan konsekuensi afiliasi yang tidak diinginkan dan pengawasan yang tampaknya pas buat mereka dalam jangka pendek.

Sebuah Catatan

Sudah sangat nyata strategi Rand Corporation ini terjadi di negeri yang mayoritas penduduknya muslim terbesar di dunia ini. Perlu diketahui bahwa Amerika akan menjadikan sesuatu menjadi suatu ancaman dilihat dari dua hal, yakni dari sisi hostility dan capability-nya.

Pertama dari sisi hostilty (permusuhan), Amerika akan menjadikan sebuah ancaman bagi sesuatu yang dianggap memiliki permusuhan. Setelah ideologi sosialisme komunisme tumbang, maka yang menjadi musuh bagi Amerika yang mengemban ideologi kapitalisme itu tiada lain adalah Islam. Mengapa? Karena Islam sebagai sebuah ideologi sangat bersebrangan dengan ideologi kapitalisme. Sebagai contoh, dalam perekonmian: bila kapitalisme memandang bahwa siapa saja berhak dalam berkepmilikan sesuatu termasuk sumber daya alam yang sangat penting bagi kebutuhan masyarakat, maka dalam sistem Islam terdapat konsep tiga kepemilikan barang. Kepemilikan individu, umum dan negara. Sumber daya alam seperti barang tambang tak berhak dimiliki oleh sekelompok orang karena itu milik umat. Dalam sistem kapitalisme, apapun boleh dimiliki.

Kedua, dari sisi capability (kemampuan). Amerika akan menjadikan sesuatu menjadi ancaman bila suatu negeri memiliki kemampuan yang kuat untuk menegakkan ideologinya tersebut. Islam menjadi ancaman serius bagi AS, karena umat Islam saat ini cenderung dalam menegakkan kemampuan tadi melalui tegaknya Khilafah Islamiyyah. Walaupun Islam belum memiliki capability untuk itu, namun saat ini di dunia sedang terjadi sebuah kesadaran global bagi kaum Muslim baik di negeri Arab, Asia bahkan Eropa yang merindukan institusi penyatu ummat itu.

Untuk menangkal ini semua, maka Amerika harus mengeluarkan kebijakan luar negerinya. Diantaranya adalah menghentikan munculnya ancaman-ancaman tersebut. Untuk menghentikan merebaknya ideologi Islam tersebut maka diperlukan orang-orang Islam sendiri yang menyampaikan Islam ala Amerika bukan Islam yang sebenarnya. Ada tiga negara yang tengah dijadikan target dalam menghadang ancaman tersebut, yaitu Turki, negara-negara Eropa dan Indonesia. Mengapa Indonesia menjadi target? Karena di negeri ini paling potensial merebaknya ideologi Islam dan berpendudukan Muslim terbesar di dunia. [f/dari berbagai sumber/ syabab.com]

AkaR MaSaLaHnya AhMaDiyah

JAKARTA — Ketua DPR, Agung Laksono, meminta aparat tak hanya bertindak tegas dalam kasus bentrokan massa antara Front Pembela Islam (FPI) dan Aliansi Kebangsaan untuk Kebebasan Beragama dan Berkeyakinan (AKKBB) di Monumen Nasional (Monas), tapi juga berlaku adil.

Para pelaku kerusuhan Monas harus dihukum, tapi masyarakat jangan melupakan akar masalah, yakni Ahmadiyah yang hingga kini belum dibubarkan. ”Ini penyebab utamanya menyangkut Ahmadiyah. Harus segera diselesaikan Ahmadiyahnya, sementara pelaku kriminal diproses menurut hukum,” kata Agung, Selasa (3/6).

Masyarakat maupun politisi diingatkan agar tak emosional menyikapi bentrokan pada Ahad (1/6) lalu itu. Agung meminta politisi jangan hanya bisa berkomentar, tapi juga aksi nyata menyelesaikan masalah. Sedangkan masyarakat diminta tidak membalas teror dengan teror.

Akar masalah insiden Monas, diakui Ketua FPDIP, Tjahjo Kumolo, adalah ketidaktegaskan pemerintah menyikapi keberadaan Ahmadiyah. Pembiaran Ahmadiyah memicu keresahan karena surat keputusan bersama (SKB) soal Ahmadiyah terus diulur-ulur.

”Sayangnya, komitmen itu tak pernah muncul. Harusnya pemerintah tegas dan tidak ragu-ragu,” katanya. Ketua Umum PBNU, Hasyim Muzadi, menilai baik FPI maupun AKKBB salah. FPI salah karena melakukan kekerasan di luar prosedur hukum. AKKBB salah karena menempatkan Ahmadiyah sebagai kebebasan berkeyakinan dan beragama.

”Sebenarnya, masalah Ahmadiyah bukan soal kebebasan beragama dan berkeyakinan, tapi penodaan agama tertentu, dalam hal ini Islam,” katanya. Hasyim menyesalkan sikap pemerintah yang tak tegas terhadap Ahmadiyah. ”Pemerintah lebih banyak berwacana daripada melakukan tindakan preventif dan represif.”

Menanggapi beberapa pihak yang berupaya menggiring NU terlibat dalam kasus Monas, Hasyim mengimbau agar tidak menyeret NU dengan melakukan aksi unjuk kekuatan, bahkan bentrok fisik dengan massa FPI. Seluruh warga NU diminta tetap tenang dan tak terprovokasi adu domba. ”Ini tidak boleh terjadi dan harus dicegah. Kita ingin menyelesaikan masalah Monas, bukan memperluas,” katanya.

Di beberapa daerah, sejumlah massa yang tergabung dalam badan otonom NU, seperti GP Anshor, mengancam membubarkan paksa FPI. Usai demo di Mapolwiltabes Surabaya , Ketua GP Anshor Surabaya, Ali Suparto, meminta polisi membubarkan FPI.

”Kalau tidak, kami akan bergerak sendiri,” ancam Ali, kemarin. Di Tulungagung, Jatim, massa Barisan Anshor Serbaguna (Banser) siap dikerahkan membubarkan FPI. Di Majalengka, Jabar, ratusan massa dari sejumlah ormas, di antaranya GP Anshor dan Ikatan Pemuda NU, menuntut hal serupa.

Menyikapi memanasnya situasi, pimpinan pondok pesantren Al-Mizan, Jatiwangi, Majalengka, Maman Imanulhaq Faqieh, meminta semua pihak meredam emosi. Menurut Maman yang menjadi salah satu korban kasus Monas, pesantren mengajarkan damai dan menghargai rasionalitas serta perbedaan.

”Kami akan meredam massa di bawah,” kata Maman. Kekerasan, tegasnya, harus dihentikan kepada siapa pun dan atas nama siapa saja.

Kedubes AS
Kemarin, Kedubes AS di Indonesia mengeluarkan siaran pers yang mengutuk aksi kekerasan oleh FPI. AS menilai, aksi itu berdampak serius bagi kebebasan beragama dan dapat menimbulkan masalah keamanan. Namun, pernyataan Kedubes AS itu dinilai anggota Fraksi PKS di DPR, Soeripto, sebagai bentuk campur tangan AS dalam masalah dalam negeri. ”Itu tidak etis. Bahasa kasarnya intervensi. Seakan-akan pemerintah kita yang lemah,” katanya.

Sementara itu, kemarin, FPI yang dipimpin Habib Rizieq Shihab melaporkan 289 orang anggota AKKBB ke Polda Metro Jaya. FPI menilai mereka aktor intelektual kerusuhan Monas. Habib juga melaporkan adanya anggota AKKBB yang membawa pistol saat aksi di Monas. (Republika online : Rabu, 04 Juni 2008)

SeMua, DianGgap BerMuLa daRi PeTisi

Pantauan hidayatullah.com di lapangan saat aksi bentrok terjadi, karena emosi sebagian umat Islam atas “provokasi” iklan Petisi yang sebelumnya dimuat di beberapa koran.

Hidayatullah.com–Sebagaimana diberitakan sebelumnya, pantauan hidayatullah.com di lapangan saat peristiwa terjadi akibat emosi massa yang terprovokasi oleh aksi-aksi sebelumnya yang dilakukan kalangan liberal dan AKK-BB. Diantaranya munculnya iklan Petisi dukungan terhadap Ahmadiyah. Iklan Petisi bertajuk, “Mari Pertahankan Indonesia Kita!” yang dimuat di beberapa media massa itu memunculkan nama-nama tokoh pendukung. Diantaranya; A. RAHMAN TOLLENG , A. SYAFII MAARIF (Maarif Institute), Abdul Moqsith Ghazali (JIL), Abdul Munir Mulkhan (UIN), Ade Armando (Majalah Madinah), Adnan Buyung Nasution, Agus Hamonangan (Kompas), para aktivis JIL lain seperti; Ahmad Baso, Ahmad Fuad Fanani . Ahmad Nurcholish . Ahmad Sahal . Ahmad Suaedi . Ahmad Taufik . Ahmad Tohari dan Akmal Nasery Basral. Juga nama-nama lain seperti; Albertus Patty, Amien Rais, Anand Krishna, Andreas Harsono, Asmara Nababan (PDI), Ayu Utami, Azyumardi Azra dan Bachtiar Effendy.

Juga nama Christianto Wibisono, Daniel Dakhidae (Kompas), Fikri Jufri (Tempo), Gadis Arivia, Goenawan Mohamad, Gusti Ratu Hemas, Hamid Basyaib (JIL), Ihsan Ali-Fauzi, Indra J. Piliang, Jajang C. Noer, Julia Suryakusuma (aktifis feminis), Kautsar Azhari Noer, KH. Husein Muhammad (JIL), Imam Ghazali Said (dosen IAIN Surabaya), Lies Marcoes-Natsir, Luthfi Assyaukanie (JIL), M. Dawam Rahardjo, M. Guntur Romli (JIL), M. Syafi’I Anwar (ICIP), Marsilam Simanjuntak, Moeslim Abdurrahman dan Siti Musdah Mulia (ICRP).

Nong Darol Mahmada (JIL), Novriantoni (JIL), Rieke Dyah Pitaloka, Rizal Mallarangeng, Syamsurizal Panggabean, Toriq Hadad, Uli Parulian Sihombing, Ulil Abshar-Abdalla (JIL), Usman Hamid (Kontras), Wardah Hafiz (pegiat feminisme), Yenni Rosa Damayanti, Yenny Zannuba Wahid, Yudi Latif, Zainun Kamal (UIN), juga Zuhairi Misrawi (JIL).

Nama-nama ini, oleh massa elemen Islam, sebagaimana pemantauan hidayatullah.com di lapangan, dianggap telah memancing emosi massa karena dianggap membela Ahmadiyah. Di sisi lain, melaui iklan Petisi nya di berbagai Koran, mereka juga telah menyalahkan kalangan Islam sebagai biang kekerasan.

[Surya/cha/www.hidayatullah.com; Senin, 02 Juni 2008 )

Indonesia: Sharia and caliphate for a better Indonesia

Published in the Jakarta Post

The Jakarta Post recently published Prijosusilo's opinion "Comparing the Ahmadiyah and the Hizbut Tahrir" (The Jakarta Post, April 16, 2008). Obviously, there are critical points that ought to be addressed.

Prijosusilo has not backed up his statements with clear arguments or facts. For instance, he has accused HT of adopting Lenin's and Trotsky's styles of political movement. It is unfortunate that such an accusation did not cite any evidence gathered from any HT official literature. Rather, he cited largely an opinion of former HT activist, Ed Husain, without further references.

Furthermore, Prijosusilo has chosen to hide the fact that the verdicts of Muslim scholars against Ahmadiyah was due to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim of messengership and prophethood, not because of being a messiah after the death of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Accusation against Hizbut Tahrir is not new. In December 2004, The Nixon Center published a book entitled Hizb at-Tahrir: Islam's Political Insurgency by Zeyno Baran. Both Baran and Prijosusilo voice highly similar opinions regarding HT, including opinions that HT instigates hatred against the West, propagates anti-Semitic expression, supports terrorism and adopts communist methods of political struggle.

With regard to the accusation of instigating hatred, one must see the object of the hatred itself. As a political party, HT has vehemently opposed Israeli occupation in Palestine and the American brutal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. One must ask again, is it wrong to hate those clear oppressions?

Prijosusilo seemed oblivious to the reason why HT has expressed certain opinions, conveniently accusing HT of merely spreading wholesale hatred against America and its western allies. Prijosusilo must know that HT has maintained consistent opposition against capitalism.

Furthermore, hatred against American capitalist policies has become commonplace in different parts of the world as shown by massive demonstrations against capitalism and the "war on terror".

One must also be clear that HT resisted the formation of the Israeli state at the expense of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, Islam has never been interested in purging Palestine from its Jewish or Christian inhabitants. Therefore, anti-Semitic accusation is misplaced, since the Islamic mission is ultimately providing justice to humanity.

History has witnessed the coexistence of Jewish and Muslim populations under the shade of the Islamic Caliphate for 13 centuries. Jewish citizens of the Islamic state enjoyed living standards that were at par with their fellow Muslim citizens. Non-Muslim and Muslim citizens both had protected access to welfare, peace, tranquility and security, as documented by Will Durant in his book The story of civilization.

Second, HT has adopted a nonviolent method to changing society, which begins with changing prevalent thoughts in society itself without the threat of violence. HT is an intellectual political entity seeking to challenge the current societal frame of thought via public discussions, seminars and debates. HT forbids the use of violence and armed struggle to overthrow current rulers as methods to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate.

Acknowledgement of this nonviolent method was expressed by Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan in an interview with Al-Jazeera on May 17, 2005. Moreover, Bill Rammell, who served as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, also stated there is no incriminating evidence of HT involvement in violence or with al-Qaeda (Hansard, 19/4/04). There is not a single European state banning HT's existence on the grounds of terror involvement.

Third, HT's method is clearly different from the communist movement. There will be no armed struggle or violence to justify the acquisition of power.

Baran has fallen into the fallacy of composition (a misplaced generalization). Obviously, the hierarchical structure of any organization cannot be said to be an exclusive trait of communist party structure. Following Baran's logic, military and parochial organizations should be labeled communists as well.

In addition, Baran also pointed out that both HT and the Communist party have pursued utopian objectives, as stated in their manifesto. Baran's statement may be true for communism, which never established a true communist state from the very day of its inception. However, Islamic ruling system (the Caliphate) is not a utopian dream, since it has existed for 13 centuries and has been led by many successors (Caliphs) of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Fourth, Prijosusilo has not disclosed the facts that the majority of Muslim states banning HT are repressive and dictatorial states like Uzbekistan, Egypt, and Syria. Dictatorial regimes have killed, tortured and imprisoned HT activists for criticizing injustice and calling for a just Islamic system of governance.

Fifth, the duty to reinstate a Caliphate cannot be compared with the deviancy of Ahmadiyah. The obligation to have an Islamic State is a mainstream opinion adopted by well-known orthodox Sunni scholars. Shaykh Abdurrahman al-Jazairi stated, "Scholars of the well-known Sunni school of legal thought, such as Abu Hanifah, Malik, Syafi'iy and Ahmad, have reached a consensus that the existence of a Caliphate is a must. The Muslim community must appoint a ruler (Caliph), who has duty to propagate the Islamic call and empower the frail and downtrodden."

Similar thoughts are also stated by Ibnu Hazm in al-Fashlu fil Milal wa al-Ahwa wa an-Nihal. The rest of the classical scholars have also expressed similar opinions in their books, such as Ibnu Khaldun in Muqaddimah, Imam Al-Mawardi in Ahkbm as-Sulthoniyah, Imam al-Qurthubi in his tafseer al-Jami li Ahkam al-Qur'an al-Azhim and Imam An Nawawi in Syarh Shahih Muslim.

Last but not least, does HT present a clear and present danger to the Republic? Within the Indonesian context, HT's call for Caliphate symbolizes a resistance to neocolonialism imposed by western capitalists in this nation. Therefore, the call for sharia and Caliphate is a civic duty of the HTI (HT Indonesia) to implement true independence from exploitation in all shapes and forms.

Asked about national sentiments and territorial integrity, HTI has maintained an unapologetic stance to resist any separatist movements. If national commitment means siding with national interests and its people, HTI has voiced loud opposition against policies that are not in favor of our citizens, such as legislations regarding oil and energy, water resources and capital investments.

Those legislations are heavily ladened with capitalist interests and exploit Indonesia's natural resources. However, if nationalism means unconditional allegiance to secularism, HTI takes a firm opposition for a simple reason -- secularism has failed Indonesia time and again. To embrace a better Indonesia, sharia and Caliphate is a strategic choice.

The writer is spokesperson of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia

HTI (HT Indonesia) members Voice their opposition against rising fuel prices

Government plans to increase fuel prices at the end of May have sparked massive protests. On Tuesday afternoon (13/5) hundreds of HTI members and other members of the Muslim community, including women and children, staged a demonstration in front of the government's Presidential Palace in Jakarta.

In addition to Islamic Banners, protesters held up posters such as: "Fuel Belongs to the People, Yet People suffer," "Fuel Price Increases, and Poverty too," "Syariah and Khilafah: Caretaker of People's Welfare."

Other organizations such as the Muslim University Student Association and the Islamic Students of Indonesia also joined the protest.

Speeches were punctuated with Takbeer and slogans to reject raisingthe fuel price. "Our government has destroyed the system. A lot of people cannot afford healthcare and medications because they are too expensive. Now, the fuel price is going up too. Are we going to stay silent?" asked Farid Wajdi. The protesters immediately responded with a resolute "NO!" Mr. Wajdi, who is an HTI activist also pointed out that we cannot afford to be silent since people's welfare are in dire straits. "Opposition must go on," he insisted.

Muhammad Al Khaththath, secretary general of Forum Umat Islam (FUI) said that the head of state must take care of the welfare of the people. "According to Hadeeth, a head of state acts as a shield to protect the people from any economical, theological and military onslaughts." On the contrary, Mr Al Khaththath accused the current regime, led by Susilo Bambang Yudoyono and Jusuf Kalla, of serving foreign and capitalist interests, and had failed to do its duty.

A speaker representing Islamic Students of Indonesia said that the democratic system had failed to deliver its promise. "Our currency goes bankrupt. Let's embrace Khilafah!" Almost instantly, the people shouted "Takbeer!" He continued, "If SBY-JK insisted on raising the price of fuel, then we demand their resignation."

During the press conference, Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Indonesia spokesman, Mr. Ismail Yusanto, pushed the government to cancel the plan of raising the fuel price. Mr Yusanto also questioned government claims that the rise of fuel prices in the world forced the government to increase the subsidy, which it can no longer afford. In reality, not all of the fuel was imported. Thus, there is no reason why domestic fuel prices must be adjusted to the international price.

According to Mr Yusanto, Indonesia has produced about 910,000 barrels every day. Therefore, the issue of subsidy should be linked to the amount of imported fuel instead of the entire fuel usage. Mr Yusanto also quoted Kwik Kian Gie, a respected Indonesian economist, who said that there is a profit margin obtained from oil production, which amounts to 35 billion rupiah that goes into the government coffers.

The government's claim that the rising fuel price will reduce poverty is also questionable. Several independent forecasts have shown that the number of people living in poverty will increase to 26 million, while inflation will increase to 26%.

"We must stress that the issue of fuel prices has exposed the current relationship between the rulers and the people, that it is like the relationship between buyers and sellers. The correct relationship should be between the people who own the resources and the rulers who obtained a mandate to manage the resources. Therefore, the people have the right to obtain fuel with a reasonable or the least expensive price possible," added Mr. Yusanto.

Natural oil and other natural resources belong to the people and must be used by the people. "We call our government to nationalize oil and natural gas companies, which have been operating in our country," said Mr. Yusanto. National government should be the one who manages the oil and gas production for the betterment of people's welfare, instead of generating profits for foreign companies.

If the government insists on increasing fuel prices, then the government chooses to be an oppressive regime. Therefore, people must re-consider their support to a regime, which has created and prolonged their misery with no end in sight. Furthermore, the people must choose a ruler that is accountable, who will implement a better system. There is no other system except Sharia, which will manage the natural resources in a just manner.

PeRs ReLeaSe: AkSi UmMat ToLak KenAikaN BBM

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَنْ كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

KANTOR JURUBICARA
HIZBUT TAHRIR INDONESIA

Nomor : 134/PU/E/05/08 Jakarta, 30 Mei 2008 M

PERNYATAAN
HIZBUT TAHRIR INDONESIA

“Aksi Ummat Tolak Kenaikan BBM”

Hari Jumat 22 Mei 2008 lalu akhirnya pemerintah benar-benar menaikkan harga BBM. Pemerintah telah jelas-jelas mengabaikan keberatan rakyat dan sama sekali tidak memperhatikan sederet solusi alternatif yang diberikan oleh para ahli ekonomi untuk menghindari kenaikan BBM.

Bila disebut bahwa keputusan ini demi rakyat, faktanya justru dengan kenaikan BBM hidup rakyat semakin susah. Harga barang dan jasa pasti akan naik, membuat jumlah orang miskin bertambah dan kemungkinan, bila PHK terjadi, pengangguran juga akan berlipat-lipat. Bantuan Tunai Langsung (BLT) plus sembako yang akan dibagikan kepada 19,1 juta rakyat miskin tidaklah mencukupi karena selain jumlahnya kurang, juga sifatnya hanya sementara. Lagi pula itu hanya untuk 19 juta rakyat, sementara puluhan juta rakyat lainnya yang tidak masuk kategori miskin (menurut ukuran pemerintah), tidak mendapatkan apa-apa padahal mereka juga bukanlah kategori orang kaya. Mereka ini, juga terkena dampak kenaikan BBM.

Bila dikatakan bahwa kenaikan BBM diperlukan untuk mempertahankan APBN, mengapa sejumlah solusi alternatif yang diberikan oleh para ahli diabaikan begitu saja? Tidak terlihat satupun dari alternatif itu dilakukan oleh pemerintah. Dalam iklan sehalaman penuh di semua media cetak, disebutkan bahwa pemerintah sudah melakukan penghematan Rp 30 triliun dari anggaran departemen. Bila benar begitu, mengapa BBM masih dinaikkan? Bukankah dengan kenaikan rata-rata 28,7% pemerintah hanya menghemat Rp 25 triliun? Jadi, untuk siapa sebenarnya kenaikan BBM ini dilakukan oleh pemerintah?

Berkaitan dengan keputusan pemerintah menaikkan harga BMM, HizbutTahrir Indonesia menyatakan:

1. Menolak keputusan pemerintah itu karena kenaikan harga BBM akan menambah kesengsaraan rakyat, dan bukan cara yang sahih untuk mengatasi krisis keuangan negara. Pemerintah adalah pemimpin yang mengurus kepentingan rakyat, yang seharusnya mewujudkan kemaslahatan rakyat, bukan malah membuat mereka menderita! Rasulullah Muhammad yang mulia bersabda,

وَاْلإِِمَامُ الَّذِيْ عَلىَ النَّاسِ رَاعٍ وَهُوَ مَسْؤُوْلٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ

“Dan imam yang memimpin manusia adalah laksana seorang penggembala, dia akan dimintai pertanggungjawaban atas rakyat yang dipimpinnya” (HR.Muslim).

2. Bahwa kenaikan harga BBM tidak lain adalah jalan yang dipaksakan oleh pemerintah untuk keberhasilan liberalisasi sektor hilir migas sebagaimana ditegaskan oleh Menteri ESDM Purnomo Yusgiantoro.

‘Liberalisasi sektor hilir migas membuka kesempatan bagi pemain asing untuk berpartisipasi dalam bisnis eceran migas…. Namun, liberalisasi ini berdampak mendongkrak harga BBM yang disubsidi pemerintah. Sebab kalau harga BBM masih rendah karena disubsidi, pemain asing enggan masuk.” (Menteri Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral (ESDM) Purnomo Yusgiantoro, Kompas, 14 Mei 2003).

Oleh karena itu, Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia menolak liberalisasi sektor migas ini karena pasti hanya akan menguntungkan perusahaan migas asing dan sebaliknya akan sangat merugikan rakyat Indonesia yang hakikatnya adalah pemilik dari migas tersebut. Maka, cara-cara seperti itu dalam pengelolaan SDA harus ditinggalkan.

3. Akhirnya, Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia mengingatkan seluruh rakyat Indonesia, bahwa sesungguhnya negeri ini tidaklah akan bisa keluar dari krisis yang ada kecuali bila di negeri ini diterapkan syariat Islam secara kaffah. Dengan syariah itulah kita mengatur ekonomi dan aspek lain sedemikian sehingga keadilan, kesejahteraan, dan kedamaian serta kemuliaan rakyat bisa dicapai. Oleh karena itu, harus ada gerakan bersama untuk kembali kepada syariah Islam.

Maka bersama ini kami mengajak untuk bergabung bersama dengan sejuta ummat dari berbagai elemen pada Aksi Ummat Tolak Kenaikan BBM. Ahad, 1 Juni Jam 13.00 di depan Istana Negara Jakarta. Mari kita tunjukkan penolakan, kekecewaan, dan ketidakpercayaan kita. Tunjukkan pula keinginan kita untuk perubahan bagi tegaknya syariah dan kepemimpinan yang amanah di negeri ini. Tentu demi Indonesia yang lebih baik.

Terakhir, ingatlah pada sabda nabi “Ya Allah, siapa saja yang menjadi pengatur urusan umatku kemudian ia memberatkan mereka, maka beratkanlah ia” (HR. Muslim)

Jurubicara Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia

Muhammad Ismail Yusanto
Hp: 0811119796 Email: Ismaily@telkom.net

Gedung Anakida Lantai 7
Jl. Prof. Soepomo Nomer 27, Jakarta Selatan 12790
Telp / Fax : (62-21) 8353253 Fax. (62-21) 8353254
Website : http: www.hizbut-tahrir.or.id

SaMueL'S cLaSh Of CiViLiZaTiOn

THE CLASH Wednesday, 09 January 2008

New York Times By FOUAD AJAMI Published: January 6, 2008 It would have been unlike Samuel P. Huntington to say “I told you so” after 9/11. He is too austere and serious a man, with a legendary career as arguably the most influential and original political scientist of the last half century — always swimming against the current of prevailing opinion. In the 1990s, first in an article in the magazine Foreign Affairs, then in a book published in 1996 under the title “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,” he had come forth with a thesis that ran counter to the zeitgeist of the era and its euphoria about globalization and a “borderless” world. After the cold war, he wrote, there would be a “clash of civilizations.” Soil and blood and cultural loyalties would claim, and define, the world of states. Huntington’s cartography was drawn with a sharp pencil. It was “The West and the Rest”: the West standing alone, and eight civilizations dividing the rest — Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese. And in this post-cold-war world, Islamic civilization would re-emerge as a nemesis to the West. Huntington put the matter in stark terms: “The relations between Islam and Christianity, both Orthodox and Western, have often been stormy. Each has been the other’s Other. The 20th-century conflict between liberal democracy and Marxist-Leninism is only a fleeting and superficial historical phenomenon compared to the continuing and deeply conflictual relation between Islam and Christianity.” Those 19 young Arabs who struck America on 9/11 were to give Huntington more of history’s compliance than he could ever have imagined. He had written of a “youth bulge” unsettling Muslim societies, and young Arabs and Muslims were now the shock-troops of a new radicalism. Their rise had overwhelmed the order in their homelands and had spilled into non-Muslim societies along the borders between Muslims and other peoples. Islam had grown assertive and belligerent; the ideologies of Westernization that had dominated the histories of Turkey, Iran and the Arab world, as well as South Asia, had faded; “indigenization” had become the order of the day in societies whose nationalisms once sought to emulate the ways of the West. Rather than Westernizing their societies, Islamic lands had developed a powerful consensus in favor of Islamizing modernity. There was no “universal civilization,” Huntington had observed; this was only the pretense of what he called “Davos culture,” consisting of a thin layer of technocrats and academics and businessmen who gather annually at that watering hole of the global elite in Switzerland. In Huntington’s unsparing view, culture is underpinned and defined by power. The West had once been pre-eminent and militarily dominant, and the first generation of third-world nationalists had sought to fashion their world in the image of the West. But Western dominion had cracked, Huntington said. Demography best told the story: where more than 40 percent of the world population was “under the political control” of Western civilization in the year 1900, that share had declined to about 15 percent in 1990, and is set to come down to 10 percent by the year 2025. Conversely, Islam’s share had risen from 4 percent in 1900 to 13 percent in 1990, and could be as high as 19 percent by 2025. It is not pretty at the frontiers between societies with dwindling populations — Western Europe being one example, Russia another — and those with young people making claims on the world. Huntington saw this gathering storm. Those young people of the densely populated North African states who have been risking all for a journey across the Strait of Gibraltar walk right out of his pages. Shortly after the appearance of the article that seeded the book, Foreign Affairs magazine called upon a group of writers to respond to Huntington’s thesis. I was assigned the lead critique. I wrote my response with appreciation, but I wagered on modernization, on the system the West had put in place. “The things and ways that the West took to ‘the rest,’” I wrote, “have become the ways of the world. The secular idea, the state system and the balance of power, pop culture jumping tariff walls and barriers, the state as an instrument of welfare, all these have been internalized in the remotest places. We have stirred up the very storms into which we now ride.” I had questioned Huntington’s suggestion that civilizations could be found “whole and intact, watertight under an eternal sky.” Furrows, I observed, run across civilizations, and the modernist consensus would hold in places like India, Egypt and Turkey. Huntington had written that the Turks — rejecting Mecca, and rejected by Brussels — would head toward Tashkent, choosing a pan-Turkic world. My faith was invested in the official Westernizing creed of Kemalism that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had bequeathed his country. “What, however, if Turkey redefined itself?” Huntington asked. “At some point, Turkey could be ready to give up its frustrating and humiliating role as a beggar pleading for membership in the West and to resume its much more impressive and elevated historical role as the principal Islamic interlocutor and antagonist of the West.” Nearly 15 years on, Huntington’s thesis about a civilizational clash seems more compelling to me than the critique I provided at that time. In recent years, for example, the edifice of Kemalism has come under assault, and Turkey has now elected an Islamist to the presidency in open defiance of the military-bureaucratic elite. There has come that “redefinition” that Huntington prophesied. To be sure, the verdict may not be quite as straightforward as he foresaw. The Islamists have prevailed, but their desired destination, or so they tell us, is still Brussels: in that European shelter, the Islamists shrewdly hope they can find protection against the power of the military. “I’ll teach you differences,” Kent says to Lear’s servant. And Huntington had the integrity and the foresight to see the falseness of a borderless world, a world without differences. (He is one of two great intellectual figures who peered into the heart of things and were not taken in by globalism’s conceit, Bernard Lewis being the other.) I still harbor doubts about whether the radical Islamists knocking at the gates of Europe, or assaulting it from within, are the bearers of a whole civilization. They flee the burning grounds of Islam, but carry the fire with them. They are “nowhere men,” children of the frontier between Islam and the West, belonging to neither. If anything, they are a testament to the failure of modern Islam to provide for its own and to hold the fidelities of the young. More ominously perhaps, there ran through Huntington’s pages an anxiety about the will and the coherence of the West — openly stated at times, made by allusions throughout. The ramparts of the West are not carefully monitored and defended, Huntington feared. Islam will remain Islam, he worried, but it is “dubious” whether the West will remain true to itself and its mission. Clearly, commerce has not delivered us out of history’s passions, the World Wide Web has not cast aside blood and kin and faith. It is no fault of Samuel Huntington’s that we have not heeded his darker, and possibly truer, vision. Fouad Ajami is a professor of Middle Eastern studies at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, and the author, most recently, of “The Foreigner’s Gift.”

AkSi UmMat ToLak KeNaiKan BBM

INI NEGERI PENUH IRONI...
Kaya sumber daya alam dan energi,tapi penuh dengan rakyat miskin dan hidup tanpa pekerjaan.
Melambungnya harga minyak dunia mestinya memberi berkah,tapi malah membawa bencana.

INI NEGERI PENUH IRONI...
Mengakui bahwa kemerdekaan diperoleh atas berkat rahmat Allah SWT,tapi hukum Allah diabaikan bahkan dicampakkan.
Sekulerisme malah dibela dan ditegakkan.
Liberalisme di segala sektor,termasuk sektor migas,makin menjadi-jadi.




"Liberalisasi sektor hilir migas membuka kesempatan bagi pemain asing untuk berpatisipasi dalam bisnis eceran migas..Namun,liberalisasi ini berdampak mendongkrak harga BBM yang disubsidi pemerintah.Sebab kalau harga BBM masih rendah karena disubsidi,pemain asing enggan masuk"
(Menteri Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral(ESDM)Purnomo Yusgiantoro,Kompas-14 Mei 2008)



Menindaklanjuti ketidakadilan alias kezaliman pemerintah RI,HTI AKAN ADAKAN AKSI BERSAMA UMAT TOLAK KENAIKAN BBM SERENTAK DI SELURUH INDONESIA PADA TANGGAL 1 JUNI 2008

ToLaK KeNaiKaN BBM 2008

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَنْ كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

PERNYATAAN
HIZBUT TAHRIR INDONESIA

MENOLAK KENAIKAN BBM 2008

Akhirnya pemerintah resmi mengumumkan kenaikan BBM, Jum’at (23/05/2008), jam 22:15 WIB, yang disampaikan oleh Menteri ESDM, Purnomo Yusgiantoro, dengan didampingi sejumlah Menteri Kabinet Indonesia Bersatu.

Karena itu, Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia dengan tegas menyatakan:

1. Menolak keputusan pemerintah menaikkan harga BBM. Karena ini kebijakan yang dzalim dan akan semakin menyengsarakan rakyat. Sebab kenaikan itu terbukti telah memicu naiknya harga barang dan jasa, yang artinya menambah kesengsaraan rakyat yang selama krisis memang sudah semakin menderita. Dana kompensasi berupa BLT plus yang akan diberikan tidaklah bakal mencukupi untuk mengganti penderitaan rakyat banyak akibat kenaikan BBM itu.
2. Cara yang ditempuh pemerintah bukanlah cara yang tepat. Banyak langkah yang disarankan para pakar tetapi tidak didengar. Keputusan pemerintah lebih pada upaya liberalisasi minyak dimana asing hendak menguasai sektor hilir setelah selama ini menguasai 90% sektor hulu.
3. Menyerukan nasionalisasi sektor energi, termasuk Migas.
4. Kenaikan BBM, kelangkaan sembako dan kesulitan hidup yang dialami oleh rakyat saat ini adalah dampak diterapkannya Kapitalisme Sekular, baik dalam bidang ekonomi maupun politik. Maka, sudah saatnya, sistem Kapitalisme Sekular yang selama ini mencengkeram Indonesia dan menimbulkan kesengsaraan rakyat banyak harus segera ditinggalkan. Gantinya adalah Islam.
5. Menyerukan kepada rakyat untuk tidak mempercayai penguasa yang zhalim.
6. Akhirnya, Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia mengingatkan seluruh rakyat Indonesia, termasuk para pejabat dan para wakil rakyat, bahwa sesungguhnya negeri ini tidaklah akan bisa keluar dari krisis yang membelenggu dan tidak akan mampu membebaskan diri dari segala kelemahan kecuali bila di negeri ini diterapkan syariat Islam secara kaffah. Jika tidak, selamanya negeri ini akan terus didera kesulitan demi kesulitan serta tetap dikuasai oleh penguasa yang zhalim.

Jurubicara Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia

Muhammad Ismail Yusanto

Hp: 0811119796
Email: ismaily@telkom.net

Gedung Anakida Lt. 7
Jl. Prof. Soepomo No. 27, Jakarta Selatan - 12790
Telp / Fax : (62-21) 8312111
Website : http//:www.hizbut-tahrir.or.id