Salah satu konsep Islam yang dianggap menumbuhsuburkan kekerasan adalah
jihad. Konsep jihad sering disalahpahami tidak hanya oleh kalangan
non-Muslim, tetapi juga di kalangan umat Islam yang tidak memahaminya
secara baik, benar dan utuh. Secara bahasa menurut pakar Alquran,
Ar-Raghib Al-Ashfahani dalam kamus kosakata Alquran-nya (al-mufradat), jihad adalah upaya mengerahkan segala tenaga, harta dan pikiran untuk mengalahkan musuh.
Karena
itu Al-Ishfahani membagi jihad kepada tiga macam: 1). Menghadapi musuh
yang nyata; 2) Menghadapi setan; 3) menghadapi nafsu yang terdapat dalam
diri masing-masing. Diantara ketiga macam jihad ini yang terberat
adalah jihad melawan hawa nafsu, sebagai mana sabda Rasulullah saw
ketika beliau baru saja kembali dari medan pertempuran; "kita kembali dari jihad terkecil menuju jihad yang lebih besar, yakni jihad melawan hawa nafsu”
Memahami
jihad dengan arti hanya perjuangan fisik atau perlawanan bersenjata
adalah keliru. Sejarah turunnya ayat-ayat Alquran membuktikan bahwa
Rasulullah saw telah diperintahkan berjihad sejak beliau di Makkah, dan
jauh sebelum adanya izin mengangkat senjata untuk membela diri dan
agama. Pertempuran pertama dalam sejarah Islam baru terjadi pada tahun
kedua Hijriah, tepatnya 17 Ramadan dengan meletusnya Perang Badar, yaitu
setelah turun ayat yang mengizinkan perang mengangkat senjata seperti
pada QS Al-Hajj (22): 39-40: "Telah diizinkan (berperang) bagi
orang-orang yang diperangi, karena sesungguhnaya mereka telah dianiaya.
Dan sesungguhnya Allah, benar-benar Maha Kuasa menolong mereka itu.
(yaitu) orang-orang yang telah diusir dari kampung halaman mereka tanpa
alasan yang benar, kecuali karena mereka berkata:"Rabb kami hanyalah
Allah". Dan sekiranya Allah tiada menolak (keganasan) sebagian manusia
dengan sebagian yang lain, tentulah telah dirobohkan biara-biara
Nasrani, gereja-gereja, rumah-rumah ibadat orang Yahudi dan
masjid-masjid, yang di dalamnya banyak disebut nama Allah. Seungguhnya
Allah pasti menolong orang yang menolong (agama)-Nya. Sesungguhnya Allah
benar-benar Maha Kuat lagi Maha Perkasa."
Ayat ini
menunjukkan perang yang diperkenankan adalah dalam rangka mempertahankan
diri, agama, dan tanah air. Fitrah manusia cenderung tidak menyukai
perang atau kekerasan, dan lebih mendambakan kedamaian. QS Al-Baqarah
ayat 216 menyatakan demikian. Karena itu, hubungan Islam dengan dunia
luar pada dasarnya dibangun atas perdamaian. Tetapi dalam kondisi
tertentu seperti jika ada pihak yang memusuhi Islam atau mengumumkan
perang terhadap Islam, Islam mengizinkan perang.
Mayoritas ulama
Islam berpandangan tidak boleh memulai peperangan kecuali jika orang
kafir lebih dahulu menyerang umat Islam. Perang dalam Islam lebih
bersifat defensif sebagai upaya mempertahankan diri bila ada ancaman dan
serangan. Para ahli hukum Islam (Fuqaha) dari kalangan empat mazhab;
Hanafi, Maliki, Syafi'i, dan Hanbali menyatakan, sebab perang dalam
Islam adalah karena ada permusuhan atau penyerangan dari orang kafir,
bukan karena kekafiran mereka. Kalau mereka menyerang umat Islam maka
sudah menjadi kewajiban untuk membalas serangan. Jadi, bukan karena
kekafiran atau perbedaan agama. Karena itu tidak boleh menyerang
seseorang lantaran berbeda agama atau kafir, tetapi hanya boleh jika ia
menyerang lebih dahulu.
Dari sini amat keliru pandangan sementara
intelektual Barat yang menyatakan “Islam jaya di atas pedang”, Islam
tersebar dengan jalan perang”. Sejarah membuktikan sebaliknya. Dibanyak
belahan dunia, seperti di Melayu, Islam tersebar dengan cara damai.
Inilah yang membuat pemikir Barat lain seperti Thomas Carlel Gustav Le
Bon, sejarawan terkenal asal Prancis, mengkritik tesis para koleganya
dengan menafikan tesis Islam tersebar dengan pedang. Apalagi kalau kita
pahami izin kebolehan berperang baru diperoleh dari Tuhan setelah 15
tahun Rasulullah mengembangkan dakwah Islam.
Jihad dengan
pengertian di atas tentunya sangat bertolak belakang dengan terorisme
yang secara bahasa berarti ‘menimbulkan kengerian pada orang lain yang
biasanya untuk mencapai tujuan-tujuan politik tertentu’.
Jihad
dengan pengertian perang bertujuan untuk melindungi kepentingan dakwah
Islam, termasuk memberikan jaminan kebebasan beragama dan beribadah bagi
seluruh umat manusia, sebab Islam sangat menjunjung tinggi kebebasan
beragama. Tidak boleh ada paksaan dalam memeluk agama (QS al-Baqarah
:256 dan QS.al-Kahfi : 29).
Mufti besar Mesir, Prof Dr Syekh Ali
Jumu’ah, menyebutkan 6 syarat dan etika perang dalam Islam yang
membedakannya dengan terorisme, yaitu:
1. Cara dan tujuannya jelas dan mulia;
2. Perang/pertempuran hanya diperbolehkan dengan pasukan yang memerangi, bukan penduduk sipil;
3. Perang harus dihentikan bila pihak lawan telah menyerah dan memilih damai;
4. Melindungi tawanan perang dan memperlakukannya secara manusiawi;
5.
Memelihara lingkungan, antara lain tidak membunuh binatang tanpa
alasan, membakar pohon, merusak tanaman, menermati air dan sumur,
merusak rumah/bangunan;
6. Menjaga hak kebebasan beragama para agamawan dan pendeta dengan tidak melukai mereka.
Dari
sini sangat jelas perbedaan antara jihad dengan pengertian perang dan
terorisme. Karena itu, salah satu butir hasil keputusan sidang majma’ al-Fiqh al-Islam no 128 tentang Hak-Hak Asasi Manusia dan Kekerasan Internasional poin kelima menyatakan, “perlu
diperjelas pengertian beberapa istilah seperti jihad, terorisme, dan
kekerasan yang banyak digunakan media massa. Istilah-istilah tersebut
tidak boleh dimanipulasi dan harus dipahami sesuai dengan pengertian
yang sebenarnya."
Oleh: Muchlis M Hanafi
Sabtu, 11 Agustus 2012
DOSA ZINA
Zina adalah hubungan seksual tanpa akad nikah yang sah, dan itu diharamkan oleh Islam. Akan tetapi, walau demikian, tidak serta merta setiap orang yang berzina atau bahkan ditemukan berzina, otomatis didera (cambuk), karena ada syarat-syarat yang harus terpenuhi untuk menjatuhkan hukuman tersebut, antara lain adanya empat orang saksi yang melihat secara nyata “masuknya pedang ke sarungnya”. Kalau hanya tiga orang yang melihat yang demikian, atau keempatnya hanya melihat sepasang pria dan wanita di tempat tidur tanpa busana misalnya, maka hukuman dera itu pun belum dijatuhkan.
Saya menduga keras bahwa hukum dera yang ditetapkan Allah itu lebih bersifat ancaman, apalagi ada anjuran agama untuk melarang orang-orang Mukmin mendekati tempat-tempat yang tidak wajar, yang di tempat itu perzinaan serta pelanggaran-pelanggaran agama dapat terjadi. Karena itu tidak keliru bila dikatakan bahwa hukuman tersebut hanya ditujukan kepada orang-orang yang melakukan perzinaan dengan sikap "menantang dan tanpa malu".
Yang berwewenang menjatuhi hukuman pun hendaknya mempelajari keadaan tersangka atau tertuduh. Kalau dinilai bahwa yang bersangkutan tergelincir maka selayaknya dia dibebaskan dari hukuman. Demikian pendapat Ibnu Taimiyah.
Ulama besar Ibnu Hazm juga berpendapat bahwa taubat mengakibatkan tidak dilaksanakannya ancaman hukuman. Sementara itu, Muhammad al-Ghazali, dalam bukunya Hadza Dinuna (Inilah Agama Kita, 1965: 188), mengemukakan juga riwayat yang menyatakan bahwa Imam Syfi‘ dalam pendapat lamanya juga berpendapat demikian.
Banyak riwayat yang menunjukkan bahwa Nabi Muhammad SAW berupaya untuk tidak menjatuhkan sanksi itu bagi yang datang mengadukan dirinya telah berzina, karena pengakuan tersebut dapat dinilai taubat yang sebenarnya.
Cara menebus dosa dari berzina –juga dosa-dosa besar lainnya—adalah dengan bertobat. Allah berfirman; "Hai orang-orang beriman, bertaubatlah kepada Allah dengan taubat yang semurni-murninya; Pasti Tuhan kamu menghapus kesalahan-kesalahan kamu dan memasukkan kamu ke dalam surga yang mengalir di bawahnya sungai-sungai…" [QS at-Tahrm [66]: 8].
Taubat yang semurni-murninya dalam hal ini merupakan taubat yang mencangkup masa lalu dengan menyesali dosa, masa kini dengan menghentikannya dan masa datang dengan tekad tidak melakukannya tidak pula ingin melakukannya. Taubat yang nasuh adalah yang pelakunya tidak terbetik lagi dalam benaknya keinginan untuk mengulangi perbuatannya, karena setiap saat ia diingatkan dan dinasihati oleh taubatnya itu.
Menurut al-Qurthubi, taubat yang nash adalah yang memenuhi empat syarat. Istighfar dengan lisan, meninggalkan dosa dengan anggota badan, memantapkan niat untuk tidak mengulanginya, dan meninggalkan semua teman buruk. Karenanya, bersegeralah melakukan taubat nasuha, karena agama Islam tidak memandang manusia bagaikan malaikat tanpa kesalahan dan dosa sebagaimana Islam tidak membiarkan manusia berputus asa dari ampunan Allah, betapapun dosa yang telah diperbuat manusia.
Demikian, wallhu a‘lam.
(M Quraish Shihab)
Jumat, 10 Agustus 2012
The Challenge in International Commercial Arbitration
International commercial arbitration has been vastly developed as one of
the most efficient and preferable methods of commercial dispute
resolution internationally — one which results in the involvement of
parties worldwide that come from different legal systems. Such differing
backgrounds often result in some gaps or unfamiliarity within the
arbitration proceedings, including when it comes to the rules of
evidence, as each legal system has its own rules of evidence.
The laws of evidence are the rules that govern the relevance, admissibility and weight of documentary and oral evidence tendered by a party, including the preparation and presentation of documents, witnesses of fact, expert witnesses and inspections, and the actual conduct of evidentiary hearings, in order to support or contest a fact in issue in the course of legal proceedings. Such laws of evidence vary across countries due to the variety of legal systems. Such variety is also reflected in various international commercial arbitration rules.
Only the The American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Rules contain provision concerning the burden of proof. Those regulations stipulate that each party has the burden of proving the facts relied on to support its claim or defense, with the only exception related to the propositions that are so obvious, or notorious, that proof is not required.
In general, it can be distinguished that there are three basic standards of proof applied in international arbitrations, i.e. a general, underlying standard, an elevated burden of proof, and a very low standard or insufficient explanation of the reasoning.
Regarding the first, a general standard is perhaps a reference to the principle known by common law lawyers as a balance of probabilities, i.e. the evidence must show that something is more likely to be true than not be true, but the standard is not as great as is required for criminal convictions.
Civil law lawyers, in contrast, are more accustomed to what may be a higher burden of proof referring to the inner conviction of the judge. However, in any circumstances, it should be realized that the real general standard is and must be a test of preponderance of evidence.
Document disclosure under the common law system means the disclosure of all relevant documents. It is seen as an obligation for a party to produce every single relevant and admissible document in its possession to the court, not merely the one that supports its case. The failure to comply with a disclosure order in litigation proceedings may lead to severe sanctions.
This phase is commonly executed after the submissions of the parties’ claims and defenses (which usually do not contain evidence), but before the exchange of witness statements and the commencement of the hearing.
In general, the provisions concerning discovery in IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (IBA Rules) allow one party to request that the other party produce some additional documents to the Tribunal.
However, such a request is subject to certain limitations. For example, a request for production of documents must contain a description of a particular document or a category of documents, with sufficient particularity to enable it to be identified, and a description of how the document is relevant to the proceeding. It must also be accompanied with a statement that the document is not in the possession of the party making the request and why it believes it is in the possession of the party to whom the request is being made.
Although discovery of evidence is currently quite common in international commercial arbitrations, such a thing is often a new experience for parties domiciled in civil law countries, where such discovery is not permitted under local law. For such parties, the discovery process carries obvious risks.
In international commercial arbitration, the discovery phase is commonly known as the “pre-hearing discovery” phase, as it is mostly conducted before the commencement of the hearing.
In the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) of the Court of Arbitration and SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre) arbitration proceedings, the pre-hearing discovery stage is initiated by the issuance of the Procedural Order by the Tribunal, which clearly orders each party to submit a request for disclosure of the documents considered relevant to the case, and thereafter obliges every party who has been requested, to provide such required documentary evidence to the court and exchange it with the other party within the time limit set out by the Tribunal in the Procedural Order.
Under the Indonesian civil law system, judges in civil proceedings are bound by the principle of “passive judge”. The “passive judge” principle means that the civil judge’s authority to accept and dispute the issues in the dispute are limited only to claims and evidence submitted by the parties. Therefore, the judges are not allowed to ask the party to submit or add additional evidence during the proceeding.
Even though the Arbitration Rules in the Indonesian National Arbitration Agency (BANI) are different from the normal rules of civil litigation proceedings in Indonesia, the rules applied in BANI are derived from the rules of civil litigation proceedings, which governed in Het Herziene Indonesisch Reglement (HIR) or Indonesian Civil Procedural Code.
Until now, Law No. 30/1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Indonesian Arbitration Law) and BANI procedures have not stipulate the discovery of documentary evidence, therefore arbitration proceedings at BANI have not yet recognized and applied the process of discovery found in international commercial arbitration.
There is only one provision under Indonesian Arbitration Law which authorizes the arbitrator or arbitration tribunal to require the parties to provide written submissions of explanations, documentary or other evidence as may be deemed necessary, within the time limitation as determined by the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal.
Nevertheless, with continued legal knowledge development of BANI’s arbitrators concerning the applicable procedures in international commercial arbitration, BANI arbitrators are currently being more flexible in utilizing the Indonesian Arbitration Law that authorizes them to order the parties to produce additional documents, and less strict in applying the “passive judge” principle.
The underlying importance of gathering all possible evidence is to find and prove the material fact(s). This aim could be achieved by requiring the parties to present and show all of the evidence to support and strengthen their arguments. Each party’s argument would be judged by the arbitrator based on the presented evidence and subsequently the award will be rendered.
The principle of fairness becomes the key in the mechanism of evidence in arbitration, and the effort to balance the process of evidence, i.e. on the one side by observing written evidence, but on the other side by also observing the witness testimony, is something that should be implemented comprehensively.
An active role on the part of the arbitrator is required to explore the evidence and testimony in order to find out the material fact(s) of the case, which will eventually lead to the issuance of a just and impartial award.
The process of discovery of documentary evidence should be implemented comprehensively in all forums of arbitration, while still respecting the applicable legal system in the lex loci arbitri.
Do'a & do the best, keep on fighting for the better Indonesia..
The laws of evidence are the rules that govern the relevance, admissibility and weight of documentary and oral evidence tendered by a party, including the preparation and presentation of documents, witnesses of fact, expert witnesses and inspections, and the actual conduct of evidentiary hearings, in order to support or contest a fact in issue in the course of legal proceedings. Such laws of evidence vary across countries due to the variety of legal systems. Such variety is also reflected in various international commercial arbitration rules.
Only the The American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Rules contain provision concerning the burden of proof. Those regulations stipulate that each party has the burden of proving the facts relied on to support its claim or defense, with the only exception related to the propositions that are so obvious, or notorious, that proof is not required.
In general, it can be distinguished that there are three basic standards of proof applied in international arbitrations, i.e. a general, underlying standard, an elevated burden of proof, and a very low standard or insufficient explanation of the reasoning.
Regarding the first, a general standard is perhaps a reference to the principle known by common law lawyers as a balance of probabilities, i.e. the evidence must show that something is more likely to be true than not be true, but the standard is not as great as is required for criminal convictions.
Civil law lawyers, in contrast, are more accustomed to what may be a higher burden of proof referring to the inner conviction of the judge. However, in any circumstances, it should be realized that the real general standard is and must be a test of preponderance of evidence.
Document disclosure under the common law system means the disclosure of all relevant documents. It is seen as an obligation for a party to produce every single relevant and admissible document in its possession to the court, not merely the one that supports its case. The failure to comply with a disclosure order in litigation proceedings may lead to severe sanctions.
This phase is commonly executed after the submissions of the parties’ claims and defenses (which usually do not contain evidence), but before the exchange of witness statements and the commencement of the hearing.
In general, the provisions concerning discovery in IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (IBA Rules) allow one party to request that the other party produce some additional documents to the Tribunal.
However, such a request is subject to certain limitations. For example, a request for production of documents must contain a description of a particular document or a category of documents, with sufficient particularity to enable it to be identified, and a description of how the document is relevant to the proceeding. It must also be accompanied with a statement that the document is not in the possession of the party making the request and why it believes it is in the possession of the party to whom the request is being made.
Although discovery of evidence is currently quite common in international commercial arbitrations, such a thing is often a new experience for parties domiciled in civil law countries, where such discovery is not permitted under local law. For such parties, the discovery process carries obvious risks.
In international commercial arbitration, the discovery phase is commonly known as the “pre-hearing discovery” phase, as it is mostly conducted before the commencement of the hearing.
In the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) of the Court of Arbitration and SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre) arbitration proceedings, the pre-hearing discovery stage is initiated by the issuance of the Procedural Order by the Tribunal, which clearly orders each party to submit a request for disclosure of the documents considered relevant to the case, and thereafter obliges every party who has been requested, to provide such required documentary evidence to the court and exchange it with the other party within the time limit set out by the Tribunal in the Procedural Order.
Under the Indonesian civil law system, judges in civil proceedings are bound by the principle of “passive judge”. The “passive judge” principle means that the civil judge’s authority to accept and dispute the issues in the dispute are limited only to claims and evidence submitted by the parties. Therefore, the judges are not allowed to ask the party to submit or add additional evidence during the proceeding.
Even though the Arbitration Rules in the Indonesian National Arbitration Agency (BANI) are different from the normal rules of civil litigation proceedings in Indonesia, the rules applied in BANI are derived from the rules of civil litigation proceedings, which governed in Het Herziene Indonesisch Reglement (HIR) or Indonesian Civil Procedural Code.
Until now, Law No. 30/1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Indonesian Arbitration Law) and BANI procedures have not stipulate the discovery of documentary evidence, therefore arbitration proceedings at BANI have not yet recognized and applied the process of discovery found in international commercial arbitration.
There is only one provision under Indonesian Arbitration Law which authorizes the arbitrator or arbitration tribunal to require the parties to provide written submissions of explanations, documentary or other evidence as may be deemed necessary, within the time limitation as determined by the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal.
Nevertheless, with continued legal knowledge development of BANI’s arbitrators concerning the applicable procedures in international commercial arbitration, BANI arbitrators are currently being more flexible in utilizing the Indonesian Arbitration Law that authorizes them to order the parties to produce additional documents, and less strict in applying the “passive judge” principle.
The underlying importance of gathering all possible evidence is to find and prove the material fact(s). This aim could be achieved by requiring the parties to present and show all of the evidence to support and strengthen their arguments. Each party’s argument would be judged by the arbitrator based on the presented evidence and subsequently the award will be rendered.
The principle of fairness becomes the key in the mechanism of evidence in arbitration, and the effort to balance the process of evidence, i.e. on the one side by observing written evidence, but on the other side by also observing the witness testimony, is something that should be implemented comprehensively.
An active role on the part of the arbitrator is required to explore the evidence and testimony in order to find out the material fact(s) of the case, which will eventually lead to the issuance of a just and impartial award.
The process of discovery of documentary evidence should be implemented comprehensively in all forums of arbitration, while still respecting the applicable legal system in the lex loci arbitri.
Do'a & do the best, keep on fighting for the better Indonesia..
Minggu, 05 Agustus 2012
Intervention in the Rohingya issue: Is it the right move?
Demand for Indonesia’s intervention to stop sectarian conflict in
Rakhine state, Myanmar, is looming large. Recently, Indonesian student
associations (PPI) in countries like Portugal, the Czech Republic, and
the United Kingdom wrote to House of Representatives Speaker Marzuki Ali
and other institutions, asking Indonesia to raise the Rohingya issue at
the upcoming ASEAN meeting.
Presidential spokesperson Julian Aldrin Pasha said Indonesia would bring the issue to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) instead.
I am critical of this move and suggest that we need to be careful before taking such steps. Ethnic conflict is a very complicated issue, requiring us to understand the root of the problem in detail, and to design the right strategy.
The Rohingya are part of an ethnic, linguistic and religious minority both in Myanmar and the province of Rakhine, formerly known as Arakan. Unlike majority Theravada Buddhist Burmese and the majority of Rakhine, who speak either Burmese or Rakhine, the Muslim
Rohingya speak Bengali.
The Rohingya claim they are descendents of Moorish, Arab and Persian traders, and Moghul, Turk, Pathan and Bengali soldiers and migrants (Ahmed, 2009). M. E. Huq and Karim (1935) said “Islam began to spread to the eastern bank of the Meghna to Arakan since the 8th and 9th centuries AD, long before the establishment of the Muslim kingdom in the frontier region”.
Between the 15th and 19th centuries, Islamic influence grew wider across the Bengal-Arakan frontier region, an in particular, Northern Arakan.
After the 1962 military coup that brought Myanmar’s current regime to power, the Rohingya were systematically denied their civil, political, economic and social human rights, culminating in the Burmese Citizenship Act of 1982.
The Myanmarese regime’s policy of extermination, ethnic cleansing and genocide of Rohingya forced the current generation of Rohingya to flee from their homes and seek protection in refugee camps in Bangladesh.
In the late 1970s, the King Dragon Operation (or Naga-Min) drove about 250,000 Rohingya out of Myanmar and entered Bangladesh (Banglapedia, 2006).
Initially, the Bangladesh government welcomed the Rohingya and made efforts to accommodate them. Bangladesh appealed to the United Nations (UN) for assistance, and eventually announced that it could not continue to shelter the Rohingya indefinitely.
By the end of 1979, more than 180,000 Rohingya had been repatriated to Myanmar (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2006). But in 1991 and 1992, when the Pyi Thaya Operation led about 250,000 Rohingya to Bangladesh, that flow was reversed as the government of Bangladesh had lost patience (Banglapedia, 2006).
The Rohingya also made their way to Indonesia. In January and February of this year, thousands of emaciated Rohingya on rickety boats reached shorelines in Sumatra and Thailand. Now there are about 394 Rohingya left in Indonesia, many of them kept in detention centers, and who need an immediate and urgent solution.
However, the root cause of the current conflict in Myanmar is different to the previous turmoil. The violence now underway amounts to a communal conflict, not state-sponsored conflict.
The current clash erupted in early June after reports circulated that on May 28 an Arakan Buddhist woman was raped and killed in the town of Ramri by three Muslim men.
Details of the crime were circulated locally in an provocative pamphlet, and on June 3 a large group of Arakan villagers in Toungop stopped a bus and brutally killed 10 Muslims on board.
In retaliation, on June 8, thousands of Rohingya rioted in Maungdaw town after Friday prayers, killing an unknown number of Arakan people and destroying their property. The conflict between Rohingya and Arakan then swept through Sittwe and into surrounding areas.
However, it is hard to corroborate the news because Arakan state is very much isolated. Many human rights activists, journalists and aid workers are struggling to reach the Rohingya. Indeed, there are no credible reports from UN bodies thus far.
Indonesia has planned to initiate diplomatic efforts by bringing this issue to the ASEAN inter-parliamentary assembly and the OIC. This move, however, is not without risks as it could harm diplomatic relations between Indonesia and Myanmar. Myanmar would also be suspicious about Indonesia’s intervention. For a long time, the Rohingya have asked for independence, and Indonesia could be accused of supporting the separatist movement.
The militancy of the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) and the Arakan Rohingya Islamic Front (ARIF) is well known. When founded, the activities of both organizations were restricted to Arakan, but following a series of incidents, and the disappointment of not finding refuge in Bangladesh, they have expanded their operations beyond the Southeastern region of Bangladesh.
According to reports, members of al-Qaeda-linked Jamaah Islamiah, which was responsible for a series of bomb attacks in Indonesia, are hiding in the Rohingya camps (Lintner, 2009). In recent years, these camps have, in effect, been run by Bangladesh’s most extreme Islamic outfit, the Harkat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami (HuJI), which was set up in 1992 with financial support from Osama bin Laden.
Rohingya militants collect funds with the help of local and international Islamic parties, and Bangladesh’s right wing party, Jamaat-i-Islam, which has been known to finance the Rohingya Solidarity Organization. Many trainers of the Rohingya are members of the Islami Chhatra Shibir, the student wing of the Jamaat (Lintner, 2009).
For all these reasons, Myanmar Nobel laureate and democracy tycoon Aung San Suu Kyi is cautious, and refrains from supporting the Rohingya because it is not clear who should be blamed.
She has demanded that the rule of law be upheld. She wants unity among ethnic groups and warns that partiality will harm the reconciliation plan. Myanmar Prime Minister Thein Sein has so far had the right response, asking all parties to calm down.
In a press statement, the Myanmar government claimed to have avoided the use of violence in resolving this issue. It also expressed its dislike of efforts to internationalize the Rohingya conflict, and denied it was a religious issue.
Indonesia could offer assistance to Myanmar with bringing peace back, given its success in ending conflicts in Aceh, Maluku and Poso. Why don’t we share our experience in conflict resolution with our fellow man in Myanmar?
Do'a & do the best, keep on fighting for the better Indonesia..
Presidential spokesperson Julian Aldrin Pasha said Indonesia would bring the issue to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) instead.
I am critical of this move and suggest that we need to be careful before taking such steps. Ethnic conflict is a very complicated issue, requiring us to understand the root of the problem in detail, and to design the right strategy.
The Rohingya are part of an ethnic, linguistic and religious minority both in Myanmar and the province of Rakhine, formerly known as Arakan. Unlike majority Theravada Buddhist Burmese and the majority of Rakhine, who speak either Burmese or Rakhine, the Muslim
Rohingya speak Bengali.
The Rohingya claim they are descendents of Moorish, Arab and Persian traders, and Moghul, Turk, Pathan and Bengali soldiers and migrants (Ahmed, 2009). M. E. Huq and Karim (1935) said “Islam began to spread to the eastern bank of the Meghna to Arakan since the 8th and 9th centuries AD, long before the establishment of the Muslim kingdom in the frontier region”.
Between the 15th and 19th centuries, Islamic influence grew wider across the Bengal-Arakan frontier region, an in particular, Northern Arakan.
After the 1962 military coup that brought Myanmar’s current regime to power, the Rohingya were systematically denied their civil, political, economic and social human rights, culminating in the Burmese Citizenship Act of 1982.
The Myanmarese regime’s policy of extermination, ethnic cleansing and genocide of Rohingya forced the current generation of Rohingya to flee from their homes and seek protection in refugee camps in Bangladesh.
In the late 1970s, the King Dragon Operation (or Naga-Min) drove about 250,000 Rohingya out of Myanmar and entered Bangladesh (Banglapedia, 2006).
Initially, the Bangladesh government welcomed the Rohingya and made efforts to accommodate them. Bangladesh appealed to the United Nations (UN) for assistance, and eventually announced that it could not continue to shelter the Rohingya indefinitely.
By the end of 1979, more than 180,000 Rohingya had been repatriated to Myanmar (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2006). But in 1991 and 1992, when the Pyi Thaya Operation led about 250,000 Rohingya to Bangladesh, that flow was reversed as the government of Bangladesh had lost patience (Banglapedia, 2006).
The Rohingya also made their way to Indonesia. In January and February of this year, thousands of emaciated Rohingya on rickety boats reached shorelines in Sumatra and Thailand. Now there are about 394 Rohingya left in Indonesia, many of them kept in detention centers, and who need an immediate and urgent solution.
However, the root cause of the current conflict in Myanmar is different to the previous turmoil. The violence now underway amounts to a communal conflict, not state-sponsored conflict.
The current clash erupted in early June after reports circulated that on May 28 an Arakan Buddhist woman was raped and killed in the town of Ramri by three Muslim men.
Details of the crime were circulated locally in an provocative pamphlet, and on June 3 a large group of Arakan villagers in Toungop stopped a bus and brutally killed 10 Muslims on board.
In retaliation, on June 8, thousands of Rohingya rioted in Maungdaw town after Friday prayers, killing an unknown number of Arakan people and destroying their property. The conflict between Rohingya and Arakan then swept through Sittwe and into surrounding areas.
However, it is hard to corroborate the news because Arakan state is very much isolated. Many human rights activists, journalists and aid workers are struggling to reach the Rohingya. Indeed, there are no credible reports from UN bodies thus far.
Indonesia has planned to initiate diplomatic efforts by bringing this issue to the ASEAN inter-parliamentary assembly and the OIC. This move, however, is not without risks as it could harm diplomatic relations between Indonesia and Myanmar. Myanmar would also be suspicious about Indonesia’s intervention. For a long time, the Rohingya have asked for independence, and Indonesia could be accused of supporting the separatist movement.
The militancy of the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) and the Arakan Rohingya Islamic Front (ARIF) is well known. When founded, the activities of both organizations were restricted to Arakan, but following a series of incidents, and the disappointment of not finding refuge in Bangladesh, they have expanded their operations beyond the Southeastern region of Bangladesh.
According to reports, members of al-Qaeda-linked Jamaah Islamiah, which was responsible for a series of bomb attacks in Indonesia, are hiding in the Rohingya camps (Lintner, 2009). In recent years, these camps have, in effect, been run by Bangladesh’s most extreme Islamic outfit, the Harkat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami (HuJI), which was set up in 1992 with financial support from Osama bin Laden.
Rohingya militants collect funds with the help of local and international Islamic parties, and Bangladesh’s right wing party, Jamaat-i-Islam, which has been known to finance the Rohingya Solidarity Organization. Many trainers of the Rohingya are members of the Islami Chhatra Shibir, the student wing of the Jamaat (Lintner, 2009).
For all these reasons, Myanmar Nobel laureate and democracy tycoon Aung San Suu Kyi is cautious, and refrains from supporting the Rohingya because it is not clear who should be blamed.
She has demanded that the rule of law be upheld. She wants unity among ethnic groups and warns that partiality will harm the reconciliation plan. Myanmar Prime Minister Thein Sein has so far had the right response, asking all parties to calm down.
In a press statement, the Myanmar government claimed to have avoided the use of violence in resolving this issue. It also expressed its dislike of efforts to internationalize the Rohingya conflict, and denied it was a religious issue.
Indonesia could offer assistance to Myanmar with bringing peace back, given its success in ending conflicts in Aceh, Maluku and Poso. Why don’t we share our experience in conflict resolution with our fellow man in Myanmar?
Do'a & do the best, keep on fighting for the better Indonesia..
Senin, 02 Juli 2012
Manja ( sederhana tp semoga bermakna )
Semoga bisa mewakili perasaanku kepadamu.. :')
Maaf bila terlalu sederhana..
Sabtu, 30 Juni 2012
Saat Bahagia :-)
Dalam sepi di kota yogyakarta, aku mengingatmu, then i uploaded this video.. Semoga bisa sedikit membangkitkan rasa lelahku seharian setelah kemarin jadi MC dadakan acara Kampus dan angkat-angkat lemari gambar kodok :-)
Selasa, 26 Juni 2012
THINKING OF PANCASILA & ATHEISM..
THINKING OF PANCASILA & ATHEISM..
Should Alexander Aan live in exile, could he express atheism without facing hatred and threats of beheading? One might wonder why he prefers to live in Indonesia (a predominantly Muslim country) which was reported by the US leading magazine Newsweek as representing “smiling Islam” more than two decades ago. Unfortunately, Aan is currently facing “angry Islam”. We might argue that the majority of Indonesian Muslims remain moderate. However, as Endy Bayuni argued, radical Islamic groups have raised Indonesia’s current political temperature (“Is there room for atheists in Indonesia?”, The Jakarta Post, June 18).
The implication is far reaching, particularly in Aan’s case. Having declared himself a “Minang atheist” and stated “God does not exist” on his Facebook account, Aan triggered revulsion and threats from hard-line groups. An angry mob also attacked Aan, but the police immediately arrested him. Recently, the Sijunjung District Court sentenced him to prison for two-and-a-half years. Still, local Muslim leaders and clerics in West Sumatra accused Aan of committing apostasy and compelled him to repent. Meanwhile, the FUI (Islamic Society Forum) said he deserved the death penalty, despite his public repentance. Other hard-liners opined that all atheists should be beheaded. Aan proclaimed himself an atheist out of the disappointment he felt with the role of religion in dealing with the complications of the worldly life.
He wrote: “If God exists, why do so many bad things happen to this worldly life?” Thus, he was not only questioning God’s existence, but also offering a discourse. As a Muslim, he expressed his faith through praying and fasting. But he stopped these rituals after considering religion useless and unable to resolve problems. I would suggest this is a matter of limited understanding of religious underpinnings, which led to a rather extreme conversion to atheism. The case of Aan, who lives in Pulau Punjung, West Sumatra, reminds me of “the new atheist” ideas propagated among Western communities by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. These radical-secularist proponents denounce religion as not only retrograde but as an evil that has created horrible problems for human beings.
They also claim that “God is Not Great” and “God is dead”. At the beginning, some young and educated people may be interested in their ideas. However, Karen Amstrong, a noted theologian and the author of A History of God sharply criticized the fallacy and supercilious tendencies of new atheist ideas. To Amstrong, God always exists and human being will always find a way to live with Him in a balanced, compassionate manner (Foreign Policy magazine, November/December 2009). It is also crucial for the Muslim communities to rethink their views on apostasy. Noted Muslim intellectuals such as Syafi’i Maarif (Indonesia), Abdullah Saeed (Australia), Hasan al Turabi (Sudan), Rashid al Ghannussi (Tunisia), and others have discussed apostasy critically based on Islamic perspectives and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Maarif, for instance, rejects strict, legalistic and exclusive perspectives on apostasy. He argues that the spirit of Islamic teachings is democratic as stated in the Koran, “there is no compulsion in religion” (Q.S. Al Baqarah: 256). Thus, he insists that atheists have the right to exist.
Furthermore, Muslim communities need to discuss atheism rationally and critically. Local Muslim leaders in West Sumatra argue that based on the first principle of Pancasila, “Belief in One Supreme God”, there is no room for atheism. For instance, the vice rector of Imam Bonjol State Islamic University–Padang, Asrasriwarni, says: “If Aan declares himself an atheist, he must be severely punished or expelled from Indonesia. Pancasila does not tolerate atheism.” (padangnews.com, Jan. 20).
Pancasila is basically a “gentlemen’s agreement” among Indonesia’s founding fathers, particularly “secular nationalist” and “Muslim nationalist” groups. It is a common platform for Indonesian societies; regardless of their religions, ethnicities and ideological backgrounds. Accordingly, the late Nurcholish Madjid argued that Pancasila should be percieved as an open ideology. The strength of Pancasila lies in its ability to unite all religions that have existed in Indonesia’s pluralistic society. The weakness of Pancasila is related to monotheism based on certain religious underpinnings. Consequently, Pancasila is often misinterpreted as a closed ideology and one that is opposed to atheism. History shows the New Order regime developed a mystification of Pancasila, declaring it is a sacred ideology. This regime issued People Consultative Assembly (MPR) Decision No. XXIX/MPR/1966 that banned Marxism/Leninism. Consequently, there is no room for atheism.
However, Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid revoked the decree during his presidency. As the guardian of pluralism, he was commited to upholding a rational discourse on atheism. It is unproductive to pursue horrible and repressive approaches toward atheists and atheism. We should instead pursue persuasive dialogue with Aan. If he is still committed to atheism, no one can force him to change his beliefs. It would be his own responsibility to be an atheist in the world and the hereafter. So, let’s be rational, objective and persuasive in resolving Aan’s case. Nobody is perfect, let alone a young and ordinary “former” Muslim like him. Do'a n do the best, keep on fighting for the better Indonesia..
Do'a n do the best ,, keep on fighting for the better Indonesia
Should Alexander Aan live in exile, could he express atheism without facing hatred and threats of beheading? One might wonder why he prefers to live in Indonesia (a predominantly Muslim country) which was reported by the US leading magazine Newsweek as representing “smiling Islam” more than two decades ago. Unfortunately, Aan is currently facing “angry Islam”. We might argue that the majority of Indonesian Muslims remain moderate. However, as Endy Bayuni argued, radical Islamic groups have raised Indonesia’s current political temperature (“Is there room for atheists in Indonesia?”, The Jakarta Post, June 18).
The implication is far reaching, particularly in Aan’s case. Having declared himself a “Minang atheist” and stated “God does not exist” on his Facebook account, Aan triggered revulsion and threats from hard-line groups. An angry mob also attacked Aan, but the police immediately arrested him. Recently, the Sijunjung District Court sentenced him to prison for two-and-a-half years. Still, local Muslim leaders and clerics in West Sumatra accused Aan of committing apostasy and compelled him to repent. Meanwhile, the FUI (Islamic Society Forum) said he deserved the death penalty, despite his public repentance. Other hard-liners opined that all atheists should be beheaded. Aan proclaimed himself an atheist out of the disappointment he felt with the role of religion in dealing with the complications of the worldly life.
He wrote: “If God exists, why do so many bad things happen to this worldly life?” Thus, he was not only questioning God’s existence, but also offering a discourse. As a Muslim, he expressed his faith through praying and fasting. But he stopped these rituals after considering religion useless and unable to resolve problems. I would suggest this is a matter of limited understanding of religious underpinnings, which led to a rather extreme conversion to atheism. The case of Aan, who lives in Pulau Punjung, West Sumatra, reminds me of “the new atheist” ideas propagated among Western communities by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. These radical-secularist proponents denounce religion as not only retrograde but as an evil that has created horrible problems for human beings.
They also claim that “God is Not Great” and “God is dead”. At the beginning, some young and educated people may be interested in their ideas. However, Karen Amstrong, a noted theologian and the author of A History of God sharply criticized the fallacy and supercilious tendencies of new atheist ideas. To Amstrong, God always exists and human being will always find a way to live with Him in a balanced, compassionate manner (Foreign Policy magazine, November/December 2009). It is also crucial for the Muslim communities to rethink their views on apostasy. Noted Muslim intellectuals such as Syafi’i Maarif (Indonesia), Abdullah Saeed (Australia), Hasan al Turabi (Sudan), Rashid al Ghannussi (Tunisia), and others have discussed apostasy critically based on Islamic perspectives and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Maarif, for instance, rejects strict, legalistic and exclusive perspectives on apostasy. He argues that the spirit of Islamic teachings is democratic as stated in the Koran, “there is no compulsion in religion” (Q.S. Al Baqarah: 256). Thus, he insists that atheists have the right to exist.
Furthermore, Muslim communities need to discuss atheism rationally and critically. Local Muslim leaders in West Sumatra argue that based on the first principle of Pancasila, “Belief in One Supreme God”, there is no room for atheism. For instance, the vice rector of Imam Bonjol State Islamic University–Padang, Asrasriwarni, says: “If Aan declares himself an atheist, he must be severely punished or expelled from Indonesia. Pancasila does not tolerate atheism.” (padangnews.com, Jan. 20).
Pancasila is basically a “gentlemen’s agreement” among Indonesia’s founding fathers, particularly “secular nationalist” and “Muslim nationalist” groups. It is a common platform for Indonesian societies; regardless of their religions, ethnicities and ideological backgrounds. Accordingly, the late Nurcholish Madjid argued that Pancasila should be percieved as an open ideology. The strength of Pancasila lies in its ability to unite all religions that have existed in Indonesia’s pluralistic society. The weakness of Pancasila is related to monotheism based on certain religious underpinnings. Consequently, Pancasila is often misinterpreted as a closed ideology and one that is opposed to atheism. History shows the New Order regime developed a mystification of Pancasila, declaring it is a sacred ideology. This regime issued People Consultative Assembly (MPR) Decision No. XXIX/MPR/1966 that banned Marxism/Leninism. Consequently, there is no room for atheism.
However, Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid revoked the decree during his presidency. As the guardian of pluralism, he was commited to upholding a rational discourse on atheism. It is unproductive to pursue horrible and repressive approaches toward atheists and atheism. We should instead pursue persuasive dialogue with Aan. If he is still committed to atheism, no one can force him to change his beliefs. It would be his own responsibility to be an atheist in the world and the hereafter. So, let’s be rational, objective and persuasive in resolving Aan’s case. Nobody is perfect, let alone a young and ordinary “former” Muslim like him. Do'a n do the best, keep on fighting for the better Indonesia..
Do'a n do the best ,, keep on fighting for the better Indonesia
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)