|
Berikut ialah petikan temubual Farish A. Noor
dengan Ulama Indonesia Abu Bakar Bashir mengenai perkembangan
Islam mutakhir ini yang disiarkan dalam Al Jazeera.
Dalam temuramah ini Abu Bakar Bashir memuji Dr Mahathir
satu-satunya pemimpin dari negara Islam yang berani dan lantang
bersuara . Kata Abu Bakar Bashir
Satu-satunya pemimpin Islam yang masih ada semangat juang ialah
bekas Perdana Menteri awak Mahathir Mohamad, yang telah
menyarankan agar memboikot matawang US dan matawang negara barat.
Benar apa yang dia katakan, iaitu negara-negara Islam sepatutnya
tidak menggunakan matawang US dan berurusniaga dengan matawang
sendiri. Kenapa kita perlu guna matawang US apabila kita
berurusniaga sesama kita ?
Walaupun Mahathir tidak secara terbuka menyatakan
jihad, setidak-tidaknya dia telah memperkatakan sesuatu. Ini apa
yang sekurang-kurangnya kita patut lakukan. Tetapi pemimpin OIC
tidak boleh menerima cadangan Mahathir, tapi mereka masih
bercakap mengenai kehormatan dan kedaulatan. Apa lagi kehormatan
yang kita ada, jika tiada sesiapa yang mendengar cakap kita ?
Mengenai Anwar Ibrahim pula Abu Bakar Bashir mengkritik : Anwar
ialah seorang yang tidak memahami Islam sepenuhnya. Macamana dia
boleh bercakap mengenai dailog dengan Amerika dan Barat ? Dailog
apa ? Dengan mereka yang membunuh orang-orang Islam ? Anwar
silap akan pandangannya terhadap Barat dan Yahudi. Orang Yahudi
tidak boleh dipercayai, sepertimana disebut dalam Al Quran. Pada
ketika ini Amerika hanyalah sebagai keldai tunggangan Israel.
Menyentuh mengenai PAS beliau mengkritik : Kemenangan Islam
hanyalah melalui dakwah dan jihad, bukan pilihanraya. Itu
sebabnya parti Islam dijalan yang salah, termasuklah yang
terbaik seperti Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) (di Indonesia)
dan PAS (di Malaysia).
Dapatkan temubual sepenuhnya di
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C46DA5C1-D200-48E6-8B24-76EE739EC243,frameless.htm
'We should not fear being called radical' By Farish A.
Noor
Cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, founder and head of the Pesantren al-Mukmin
of Ngruki, based in the Indonesian city of Surakarta, is widely
known in Southeast Asia and around the world.
Following the bombings on the island of Bali in 2002, he was
accused of being involved in the attack and subsequently jailed.
After his early release last month, he has once again appeared
on the Indonesian political scene.
Despite the accusations that were leveled against him, many
Indonesians have expressed support for the man and skepticism
over the trial, arguing that the Indonesian government was
forced to act against Bashir due to pressure from Western
governments including the United States and Australia.
Malaysian academic and commentator Farish A. Noor recently
visited the Pesantren al-Mukmin in Solo and met with Bashir
himself. The following is a transcript of his conversation
(conducted in Bahasa Indonesia) with Bashir:
FN: We have just returned from a demonstration where you and the
students of Ngruki were present along with members of the Majlis
Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI), Front Pembela Islam (FPI), Front
Pemuda Islam Solo (FPIS), Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI), Partai
Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) and others. When you spoke to the crowd
you focused mainly on the current conflict in
Lebanon and the aggression of the Israelis. You also criticised
the weakness of the Muslim leaders of the world. Why has it come
to this? Recently there was the OIC meeting in Kuala Lumpur and
the statement they came up with was lame and non-conclusive; why
are Muslim governments so scared to speak up and call for united
action?
"There is not a single Muslim leader today who has the courage
and commitment to defend Islam and Muslims"
ABB: This is to be expected from them. What else can they do?
What else can they say? There is not a single Muslim leader
today who has the courage and commitment to defend Islam and
Muslims, they are all in awe of the United States and other
Western powers, and are indebted to them. This is what we call
Wahn. Our Prophet warned that this would be the case in the
future, that the Muslim ummat would be great in numbers, but
weak in spirit - until they are trampled upon again and again.
The Arab leaders and other Muslim leaders in Asia all suffer
from this disease called wahn, this weakness brought about by
wealth and privilege, and thus they have become soft. That is
why they cannot stand up to the kafirs and they cannot be firm
in their statements and policies. Their love for the world and
all things wordly means that they only think of themselves. Arab
leaders worry more about making money from the profits they get
from oil and gas that they turn the other way when Lebanon is
being destroyed right next to them. Their neighbours are being
murdered, but they only make calculations for their own benefit.
This is why I have always said that it would be better if
Muslims were poor. Oil wealth has been a curse on us, made us
weak and docile. Look at the Afghans, during the time of the
Soviet invasion. They were among the poorest Muslims in the
world, yet they were sustained by their faith in God, and God
alone.
YOUR VIEWS
What do you think of Abu Bakar Bashir's statements in this
interview?
Send your comments to:
yourviews@aljazeera.net
We will endeavour to publish as many as we can in the coming
days.
Muslims must believe that all power, success and victory comes
from God alone. If God wills it, they will win - no matter what
the odds may be. The Prophet defeated the enemies of Islam even
when he and his followers were small in number. Why? Because
they had the ultimate power, God, on their side. This is the
real superpower. The Afghans did not have sophisticated weapons
like the Soviets did, but with their faith they defeated a
superpower. That is when the kafirs feared us Muslims, when we
had discipline and faith, when we were strong in our hearts and
not weak in our stomachs.
This jihad spirit is not in the OIC now. Show me an OIC leader
who can talk about jihad. Not even the leaders of Malaysia or
Indonesia have this, so how can we do anything?
"What honour have we got left, when nobody is listening to us?"
The only Muslim leader who has some spirit left is your former
leader Mahathir Mohamad, who called for a boycott of US and
other Western currencies. He was right, when he said that Muslim
countries should abandon the US Dollar and trade with their own
currencies instead. Why should we use the Dollar even when we
trade among ourselves? Even though Mahathir did not openly call
for jihad, at least he said something. This was the least we
could have done.
But the leaders of the OIC could not even accept Mahathir's
proposal, yet they talk about respect and honour. What honour
have we got left, when nobody is listening to us?
FN: Some would argue that this weakness stems from the fear of
being seen as being 'too radical'. I have problems with this
concept, for I believe that being a radical is not necessarily a
bad thing. After all Nelson Mandela, Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyata,
Ghandhi, Nehru, were all radicals in their time; and they did
not compromise in their opposition to colonialism, imperialism,
racism and apartheid. So why can't we be radicals now?
"We should not accept the idea that being a radical is a bad
thing. Any movement for change will be radical"
ABB: You are right, but the weakness does not come from the
millions of Muslims in the world. They do not mind being
radical, they have no fear to speak out and to protest and to
jihad. But the weakness comes from these Westernised co-opted
Muslim leaders who just want to look good in the eyes of the
West and Western media. They are scared that the BBC or CNN may
call
them radicals, so they remain soft instead. The problem lies
there, with the Muslim leaders, not the Muslim masses.
The Muslim leaders swallow the advice of the Western powers and
bodies like the IMF and World Bank, even when it is bad for
their countries and they know this. They are the real hypocrites
and traitors to Islam and Muslims. Yet as you say we should not
accept the idea that being a radical is a bad thing. Any
movement for change will be radical. Our Prophet was a radical
too- he fought against the injustices of his community and
challenged the feudal order of his society, so they called him a
radical. So what? We should be proud of that!
We should be proud that our Prophet came into the world with the
message of Islam to change it for the better, and not for the
worse, or to keep things as they are. What use is revelation or
religion if it doesnt change anything?
Today the Western powers and media want to domesticate us like
sheep, to keep us tame and domesticated. But why are animals
domesticated? So that they can be slaughtered in the end!
That is why they use the label 'radical' in the way they do, to
keep us scared and to keep us under control. This is true for
our leaders, who have all been domesticated and trained to speak
the way their Western bosses want them to.
FN: So where do we get our role models then?
"Islam in its original form was tough and hard, not weak and
pliable"
ABB: The only model to follow is pure Islam. Because Islam in
its original form was tough and hard, not weak and pliable.
Islam is fixed, stable, ordered and disciplined, and so are
Muslims.
If we return to the real practice of true Islam we would be much
stronger and that is when the kafirs will fear us. That is why
we need to uphold the Shariah and return to real Islam. But the
West is trying to weaken Islam from outside and inside. They
attack our people and invade our countries from outside, and
they weaken us from within with ideas like secularism,
liberalism and democracy. This is all designed to contaminate
our pure Islam.
"We want the state to be Islamic, with Islamic leaders who have
the courage and will to implement the Shariah in total. There is
no other way"
Why do we Muslims have to learn from them? Islam is perfect,
there is nothing to be added or changed. We have shown that
Islam can rule the world perfectly for 14 centuries, and during
this time of Muslim power we did not borrow ideas like democracy
from others, so why do we need to learn democracy from them now?
As long as Muslims were confident they could not be defeated,
but now we are just puppets.
This is why we are calling for the upholding of the Shariah here
in Indonesia. We demand an Islamic state, and not some form of
Islamisation of society. We want the state to be Islamic, with
Islamic leaders who have the courage and will to implement the
Shariah in total. There is no other way.
FN: Can you elaborate a little more on that? What do you mean by
enforcing Shariah with determination?
ABB: Islam's laws are fixed and that is why Islam is stable.
Laws are to be enforced justly but firmly, with an iron
hand. This is the case anywhere, even in a family.
"We want an Islamic state where Islamic law is not just in the
books but enforced, and enforced with determination. There is no
space and no room for democratic consultation"
Look at my own case: I am the father in my family. It is my duty
to enforce the Shariah in my family and I do so with an iron
hand. If my children do not behave according to Islam, if they
do not pray for instance, I will punish them. Likewise the
leader of any state has to do the same, he has to enforce
Shariah firmly, for he will be held in account later in the
afterlife if he fails. If his society breaks Islamic law, who is
responsible? Is it not the leader, who has failed to enforce the
laws of God? Here in Indonesia we have such laws but they are
never enforced, that makes a mockery of Islam and Shariah.
So we want an Islamic state where Islamic law is not just in the
books but enforced, and enforced with determination. There is no
space and no room for democratic consultation. The Shariah is
set and fixed, so why do we need to discuss it anymore? Just
implement it!
Right now we are drafting our own constitutional ammendents for
Indonesia, the framework for an Indonesian Islamic state where
Islamic laws are enforced. Indonesians must understand that
there is no Islamic state without the enforcement of Islamic
laws. Otherwise it is just talk and nothing else.
FN: What about the Muslim leadership here in Southeast Asia?
Earlier you criticised the leaders of Indonesia and Malaysia.
How have they failed in your eyes?
ABB: Indonesia is in a mess as you can see. We are a very rich
country, with plenty of resources and good people who want to
live decent lives, but look at how corruption has destroyed our
country. We should be a rich country but successive Indonesian
leaders have left us weak and dependent on external aid. We are
busy paying off loans when we should be giving loans
instead! And our leaders during the Orde Baru (of former
president Suharto) were secular, pro-American and entirely
corrupted by global capitalist forces.
"How can Malaysia sign a free trade agreement with America and
Japan? Are these not kafir countries?"
As for Malaysia, you may be economically better off but your
leaders are weak. Badawi may come from a family of ulama but his
faith is weak and so is his spirit. How can Malaysia sign a free
trade agreement with America and Japan? Are these not kafir
countries? And America today is an enemy of Muslim states and
the supporter of Israel. In Islam that makes America a
kafir harbi (enemy) state, and we Muslims are obliged to cut off
all ties, diplomatic and economic with such an enemy state.
Anwar (Ibrahim) is also someone who does not understand Islam
well. How can he talk about dialogue with America and the West?
What dialogue? With murderers of Muslims? Anwar is mistaken
about his views on Westerners and Jews. The Jews are cunning and
cannot be trusted, as it states in the Qur'an. At the moment the
United States is just being the donkey for
Israel, who is riding the USA.
How can we dialogue for peace in the Arab world as long as
Israel exists? Israel cannot dream of having peaceful borders
because Israel has no right to exist, no right to be there. That
is the land of Palestine, for the Palestinians. How can any
Muslim leader say that Israel has the right to safe borders? It
should not be there in the first place!
FN: Is there no way to engage in dialogue then?
"When you dialogue with countries that are anti-Islam and kill
Muslims, how can you call yourself an Islamic state?"
ABB: In Islam there is only one way, the Islamic way. Dialogue
with the kafirs is useless unless we Muslims are already living
in Islamic states and not secular democracies. When you want
dialogue with Muslims, Muslims need to be in power in their own
countries first, on their terms. If the (Muslim) government does
not impose Shariah, it has to be replaced. As long as the
government does not go against Islam, we can still tolerate it.
But once it goes against Shariah, we must oppose it.
When our governments engage with enemy kafir states,is that not
going against Islamic principles? When you dialogue with
countries that are anti-Islam and kill
Muslims, how can you call yourself an Islamic state?
It is the duty for Muslims to oppose their governments when
their leaders dialogue with our enemies. It says so in the Quran
(Surah 60:9), that those who oppose Islam are our enemies and we
must fight against them. So before we dialogue with kafirs, we
need to go on jihad against our own hypocrite governments first
that are apostates and against Islamic principles.
FN: So what kind of Muslim leadership are you talking about?
What kind of Muslim leader do you want to see?
ABB: All the answers are in Islam. As the scholar Ibn Taymiyyah
has argued in his work Kitab Fatawa, Islam is in two parts: the
Quran and the Sword.
"If the Prophet carried a spear, then for us today we can carry
an M-16!"
The Quran has all the guidelines, rules, norms, laws and
punishments we need. The enforcement of the Shariah is the sword
we are talking about. Without enforcement of the Shariah the
Quran is just words in a book. It is a text with no practical
meaning. That is why the message has to be implemented and
realised with determination.
Look at the sunnah (practice) of the Prophet. When he gave his
speeches and surmons he had a spear (tombak) in his hand. Why?
This was the symbol of power. His followers knew he was serious,
and not simply giving empty talk. He meant what he said and he
did what he said he would do.
Sadly over the centuries Islam grew weak and we forgot that the
Prophet carried a spear when he spoke. The spear was replaced
with a staff (tongkat) instead, as if Muslims were weak and
needed a walking-stick to stand up! We need to go back to this
original, strong, robust Islam. Like the Prophet we need to
carry the spear (tombak) again. If the Prophet carried a spear,
then for us today we can carry an M-16!
"The closest we ever got to an Islamic state was the Taliban
government in Afghanistan"
Muslim leaders today have fallen short of the Prophet's example.
They mouth empty pious phrases about how they yearn for an
Islamic state, but they dont have the guts or will to do it.
There is not a single Islamic state in the world, not even in
Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are hypocrites and friends of the
United States; their leaders are all corrupt and worldly.
The closest we ever got to an Islamic state was the Taliban
government in Afghanistan, but the Americans destroyed that,
with their Western allies.
FN: But the Saudis claim that they are the defenders of the holy
sites of Islam and Muslims. What is more they are the promoters
of Wahabism. How do you reconcile that?
ABB: Wahabism is just a school of thought. The Saudi regime used
the Wahabis for their own political ends, to justify their rule
and to control their people. Occasionally they may implement one
or two Wahabi ideas, but then again only for cosmetic reasons.
They impose laws on dress and public behavior, but what about
the moral obligation to jihad against the enemies of Islam? How
can you promote Wahabism when you remain a close ally of the
United States, the supporter of Israel?
The Wahabis in turn are just conservatives with no agenda for
social transformation. Look at what they did to Islamist
movements like the Ikwan'ul Muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood) of
Egypt: They condemned the Ikwan as revolutionaries and radicals,
just like the Western media!
FN: This tendency of Muslim groups to condemn each other has
always been a problem since the beginning of the Muslim
community. Why is this? How come Muslims cannot stop attacking
each other?
ABB: They have left the path of true Islam, that is why they are
divided into so many sects and streams of thought. But the
hadith tells us of how a follower of the Prophet once asked him:
"What will be the future of the ummat?". The Prophet predicted:
"In the future you will be great in numbers, but you will be
small and weak, like froth, bubbles, floating". The follower was
shocked when he heard this, but the Prophet insisted that that
would be so, because the Muslims will be divided and leaderless.
"All our divisions come from the West, from Western ideas like
nationalism and from their ideologies like democracy and
secularism."
Muslims need to realise what it means to be an Ummat. The Ummat
is one family, and every Muslim is your brother. It doesnt
matter what the colour, race, or country the other Muslim is
from, he is still your brother, you must support him and help
him when he needs your help.
But the opposite is also true. Those who are kafirs are not your
family. Even if your own parents are not Muslims, they are not
your family. They are kafirs, outside Islam. You need not think
of them as members of the Ummat. When we forget our ummat, then
we become weak and divided. All our divisions come from the
West, from Western ideas like nationalism and from their
ideologies like democracy and secularism.
FN: If it is unity that you wish to see, then surely someone has
to lead this community. Who, then, has the right to speak about
Islam and on behalf of Muslims?
ABB: Those who speak for Islam and Muslims can only be the ones
whose ideas come solely from the Quran and Hadith. Not the
liberals, who try to use reason and rationality to interpret the
Quran. This has become fashionable now, but it is against Islam
and is not allowed.
"Intellectuals and liberals want to interpet the Quran according
to circumstances, whereas it is the circumstances that have to
be adapted to the Quran"
How can the Quran be interpreted rationally? These intellectuals
and liberals want to interpet the Quran according to
circumstances, whereas it is the circumstances that have to be
adapted to the Quran.
It is clear that the Quran is not to be discussed by those who
do not follow the rules that are set. There is no democracy in
Islam, so do not try to interpret the Quran and turn Islam into
a democracy to suit your needs. God's law comes first. It is not
up to the will of the people to decide what is right and how to
live. Rather the will of the people have to be bent to suit the
will of God. It is not democracy that we want, but Allah-cracy!
The principles of Islam cannot be altered and and there is no
democracy in Islam or nonsense like 'democratic Islam'.
Democracy is shirik (unbelief) and haram. Here we do not
compromise. Those who claim to be Muslims and do not support
Shariah one hundred per cent are all munafik and kafirs, they
are out of Islam. No need to discuss with these people, they are
not part of the ummat anymore. There is no need to listen to
public opinion: kafirs, apostates, liberals, atheists - they are
all non-believers.
FN: But how can this attitude lead to social and political
change? Here you and your followers in groups like the Majlis
Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI), Front Pemuda Islam Solo (FPIS), etc
are calling for an Islamic state, with a legal constitution
based on the Shariah. But how will you achieve this in the
context of Indonesia today which remains a constitutional
democracy?
ABB: Islam's victory can only come through dawah and jihad, not
elections. Thats why Islamic parties are on the wrong path, even
the better ones like the Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) here
(in Indonesia) and your PAS (in Malaysia). As long as democracy
is their chosen path, the end result is haram. Nothing good can
come from that which is haram, is that not the case? So if
democracy is haram, then what kind of Islamic state can come
from that? Certainly not a pure Islamic state. Elections are
quite useless.
"Islam is here to change the world, not to be changed by the
world"
The struggle for Islam can only come through crisis and
confrontation. Islam is here to change the world, not to be
changed by the world. So there is bound to be resistance, that
is why the West fears us.
If we accept Western norms like democracy then we can never
reach the Allah-cracy I mentioned earlier. Democracy must be
replaced by Allah-cracy and this cannot come from elections.
Those who oppose us must be educated, that is why dawah is
important, to show them that Islam is the only way. But if they
still resist, and are wilfully stubborn, or if they create
obstacles for us, then they must be opposed. In particular all
the Muslims who oppose us are apostates (murtad) and they in
particular need to be dealt with firmly. We need not care for
them, or feel sorry for them. They were the ones who chose to
reject Shariah, to reject Islam, and so they chose to become
apostates.
FN: And you are convinced that this jihad for Shariah will solve
all our problems? Will it solve the economic and political
problems of Muslim countries like Indonesia for instance?
ABB: It is the first step and the right step. Economic problems,
political problems, all other problems - these can only be
solved when we have a firm and committed leadership that is
committed to upholding and enforcing the Shariah without fear.
Look at our region now: Muslims are being killed in Patani
(Southern Thailand) and Mindanao (Southern Philippines). But
what do the weak leaders of Malaysia and Indonesia do? Have they
actually done anything, apart from reading speeches and signing
documents of peace? Muslims are dying, not in Lebanon but right
here, right in front of us. These are our brothers, our
neighbours. But the governments (of Malaysia and Indonesia)
cannot do a single thing. This is what I mean by the disease of
corruption and wealth earlier. They are weak, cowardly leaders.
"We must always keep to the Islamic path, jihad in the name of
Shariah, and never be apologetic"
That is why we need to go back to original, pure Islam, and to
follow our Prophet's example. The kafirs never tried to fool
around with our Prophet, they knew he was serious and
determined. Yet he was fair and just, and even when he had
defeated the kafirs in battles and in Medinah and Mecca, he
forgave them. Forgiveness does not mean weakness, but strength.
But you need to be strong first, like our Prophet was. He was
strong but not arrogant. Muslim leaders today need to be strong
like that, and take a firm stand on issues.
FN: And this sums up your vision of Jihad today? Is this the sum
of your own approach to Islam and the problems affecting
Muslims?
ABB: This is the Islamic view of things. We must never
compromise, relent, give up, submit to our kafir enemies. We
must always keep to the Islamic path, jihad in the name of
Shariah, and never be apologetic.
So I agree that we must never be apologetic about being called
'radicals' today. Even during the time of the Prophet his
enemies called him a madman! So being called a 'radical'
is not as bad! We should not apologise for this, or compromise
in our jihad. Today they call us �radicals�, tomorrow they will
call us something else. These obstacles will always be there,
because the kafirs fear us when we get stronger.
Remember that jihad is what brought Islam to power and built our
community. There can be no Islam without jihad. Why, even if you
want to build a Capitalist or Communist state you need to have a
jihad; a jihad for capitalism or a jihad for communism. So why
cant Muslims engage in a jihad for Islam and Shariah?
Dr. Farish Noor is currently working at the Centre for Modern
Orient Studies in Berlin. In his native Malaysia he is is a
well-known columnist, speaker and academic.
Adat Bersendikan Hukum , Hukum Bersendikan Kitab Allah
Syarak Mengata , Adat Menurut
Sila layari Blog PAS N.Sembilan di
http://pasns.blogspot.com
|
