DEBAT : Murtad, hukum mati atau tidak ?**

Murtad: mereka yg meninggalkan Islam. Apa hukumannya & bgm penerapannya di negara2 Islam ?
Post Reply
ali5196
Posts: 16757
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

DEBAT : Murtad, hukum mati atau tidak ?**

Post by ali5196 »

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=22247

Symposium: KEMATIAN BAGI MURTAD ?
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 28, 2006

Kasus ancaman hukuman mati bagi Abdul Rahman di Afghanistan karena murtad dari Islam, belakangan ini membuat kita sekali lagi bertanya-tanya ttg modernisasi dan demokratisasi dunia Muslim.

Apa yg bisa kita nilai dari sebuah agama yg di thn 2006 ini masih juga menyatakan hukuman mati terhdp penduduknya yg ganti agama ?

Bahkan para imam di Afghanistan membenarkan dasar2 ekseksusinya itu – yg nota bene didukung oleh SELURUH DUNIA ISLAM. Macam agama apa ini ?

Dan kalau memang begini, bgm mungkin dunia muslim akan pernah mencapai demokrasi ?

Utk membahas pertanyaan2 ini, kami mengundang:


Thomas Haidon, Kepala Penasehat Hukum dan Kebijakan dari 'the Free Muslim Coalition.' Ia juga komentator masalah hukum ttg tindakan anti-terorisme dan masalah2 Islam, dan saat ini adalah penasehat pemerintah Selandia Baru utk masalah2 anti-terorisme. Tulisannya sering dimuat majalah2 hukum dan media tulis lainnya.

Salim Mansur, penulis Muslim writer dan professor ilmu politik di University of Western Ontario.

Sergei Trifkovic, mantan penyiar BBC dan kini wartawan US NEWS dan World Report. Buku2nya adalah 'The Sword of the Prophet', dan 'Defeating Jihad.' Komentarnya bisa dibaca di ChroniclesMagazine.org.

dan

Robert Spencer, ilmuwan sejarah, teologi dan hukum Islam dan direktur Jihad Watch. Ia penulis 5 buku dan ratusan artikel ttg jihad dan Islamic terrorism, termasuk 'Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith' dan 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).' Ia juga Anggota Kehormatan 'the Free Congress Foundation.'

------------------------------------
FP: Selamat datang. Bpk Haidon, mari kita mulai dgn anda.
Pertanyaannya adalah : sbg seorang Muslim, apa pendapat anda ttg hukuman mati terhdp Abdul Rahman ? Bukankah hukuman itu didasarkan pada ajaran Islam yg anda sendiri tidak dapat bantah. Betulkah ?

Haidon:
Secara pribadi, pemberlakuan hukum pidana ataupun sosial terhdp seseorang karena ganti agama, secara moral dan hukum tidak dapat dibela dari perspektif internasional. Bahkan, menurut saya, ini juga tidak sesuai dgn tafsiran kontekstual atas Qur’an dan Sunnah (yang tidak selalu merupakan pandangan Islam yg berlaku).

Hukuman terhdp Abdul Rahman dll di Afghanistan dan negara2 Muslim lainnya, membawa tantangan serius bagi Muslim2 moderat agar mengutuk hukuman macam itu tapi juga mengembangkan argumen teologis yg jelas dan seksama, menunjukkan bahwa argumen itu tidak dapat didukung, menggunakan Qur’an dan Sunnah.

Hasil positif dari hukuman terhdp A Rahman ini adalah intoleransi yg ditunjukkan pemerintah Afghan dan Muslim2 diseluruh dunia yg menyerukan bagi kematiannya. Ini mudah2an akan menyadarkan Barat akan prinsip2 Islam dan akan menghasilkan strategi efektif utk memeranginya.

Saya akui, dari luar, menurut yurisprudensi Islam, spt disampaikan oleh keempat mazhab Sunni dan yurisprudensi Shi’iah, MURTAD DARI ISLAM HARUS DIBUNUH. Namun, mudah2an dari diskusi ini, Quran-sumber otoritatif yurisprudensi Islam mengkontradiksi tradisi Muslim ini.
Qur’an tidak memberikan hukuman didunia bagi mereka yg tidak lagi percaya dlm Islam, malah banyak ayat nampak menegaskan kebebasan beragama dan berpikir. Hadis yg digunakan sbg dasar hukuman mati itu harus dianalisa kembali.

FP: Serge Trifkovic?

Trifkovic:
Memang mudah utk mempertanyakan yustifikasi Quran terhdp hukuman mati bagi murtad, tapi sulit utk membantah bahwa tuntutan bagi hukukan mati itu didasarkan sepenuhnya oleh sumber2 dan preseden Islam sendiri yg tidak dapat ditarik kembali.

Walau Islam memang tidak monolithic, para pencetus hukuman mati bagi murtad sepenuhnya menggantungkan pada sumber dan prinsip yg TIDAK didasarkan pada tafsiran meragukan terhdp Quran ataupun Hadis.

Sumber2 ini menciptakan sebuah kode moral dan hukum yg menghapuskan pemikiran individual yg didasarkan pada ajaran moralitas universal. Jadi, analogi Islam diciptakan diluar logika, nalar ataupun jalan pikir normal. Dasar moral bagi ekseksusi murtad dlm Islam sangat explisit : dlm Islam tidak ada "spirit of the law," tidak diperlukan logika. Konsekwensi akan pemberlakuan eksekusi ini juga tidak dipersoalkan karena wahyu dan tradisi tidak boleh dipertanyakan. Batas2 ttg baik atau buruk tidak dapat diterapkan, apalagi standar keadilan internasional.

Kebencian Islam atas kemerdekaan berpikir individu memiliki konsekwensi politik serius bagi sebuah masyarakat yg memberlakukan segala keputusannya atas otoritas dari "Nabi" : Setiap kelakuan yg merupakan pengungkapan kebebasan yg berbeda dari penundukan total terhdp Islam dianggap terlarang dan dosa. Ketidaksempurnaan manusia tidak diberikan kesempatan utk diperbaiki. Kemajuan politik semacam yg dicapai AS pada kemerdekaannya thn 1776 (dlm Islam) tidak dimungkinkan, bahkan dianggap tidak relevan.

Penolakan Islam atas prinsip2 moralitas internasional sudah bisa diramalkan hasilnya, dan Muslim dan korban mereka, dua2nya menjadi korban Islam : keduanya diperbudak, dibrutalisasi, dan di-dehumanisasi. Diskriminasi terhdp agama lain dan wanita, rasisme, perbudakan, anti-Semitisme dan imperialisme budaya bisa ditemukan, baik secara individual atau dlm bermacam2 kombinasi disemua budaya dan diberbagai era. Tapi hanya Islam memiliki kesemuanya itu, selama seluruh masa eksistensinya, dan bahkan dianggap direstui dari Atas pula.

Jadi, bukannya para algojo A Rahman yg "mendistorsi" Islam; justru para 'reforman' yg mendistorsi Islam.

FP: Salim Mansur?

Mansur: Thank you, Jamie.
Anehnya, saya setuju dgn semua yg dibahas sejauh ini. Alasannya mudah. Islam dan Qur’an bisa dipraktekkan dan dijelaskan, dibenarkan atau ditolak, dgn cara apapun.

Qur’an menggambarkan diri sbg samudera tidak berkesudahan yg dari dasarnya orang bisa megnambil campuran hal2 yg menopang ataupun megnhancurkan kehidupan. Dlm metafora ini, Qur’an spt alam dgn gunung berapi, gempa bumi dan tsunami dan ditengah2nya kau akan menemukan bunga mawar yg rapuh. Muslim yg didorong oleh kekuasaan secara sengaja tidak mau menoleh pada mawar2 yg rapuh itu.
Abdul Rahman adalah bunga mawar itu, spt juga Mansur ibn Hallaj, dan Ali ibn Talib dan Husayn ibn Ali, dan jumlah orang yg tidak bisa dihitung yg dibunuh oleh Muslim yg mendasarkan kepercayaan mereka pada prinsip2 penghancuran dlm Qur’an.

Islam kini terbuka utk diperiksa secara global, spt memang seharusnya.
Agama adalah kosntruksi manusia dan setiap agama yg mencegah kehidupan adalah tidak bernilai. (Ingat kata2 ini ! red) Jadi, Muslim harus maju tanpa malu dan tanpa takut mengupas kulit utk mendapatkan mutiara didlm Qur’an.

Tuhan memberikan manusia otak dan kebebasan utk membedakan antara kulit dan mutiara didalamnya. Qur’an digunakan mayoritas Muslim sbg kode hukum utk diberlakukan (ini kulitnya), dan bukan sbg buku etika yg menggabungkan kebebasan dan tanggung jawab (ini mutiaranya). Quran pada intinya mengandung perintah bagi Muslim utk menjadi manusia yg mengingingkan kebebasan individual.


FP:
HAH ???Qur’an mengandung perintah bagi Muslim utk menjadi manusia yg menginginkan kebebasan individual ??? Wah, bagi sekali ini saya mendengarnya ! Maaf, tapi jujur saja ! Saya BELUM PERNAH membaca apapun dlm Qur’an yg sedikitpun mirip dgn Deklarasi Kemerdekaan AS atau mirip dgn Konstitusi AS atau dgn konstitusi manapun yg mempromosikan hak2 individu utk hidup sesuai dgn kemauannya, tanpa campur tangan negara.

Robert Spencer, mungkin anda bisa merangkum diskusi sejauh ini ?

Spencer:
Memang interesan utk melihat apa yg telah dikatakan dan apa yg TIDAK dikatakan sejauh ini. Kedua peserta Muslim mengakui bahwa, dlm kata2
Haidon, “menrurut yurisprudensi tradisional Islam, spt diajarkan oleh keempat mazhab Sunni, dan juga yurisprudensi Shi’iah, MENEGASKAN BAHWA DALAM ISLAM, SEORANG MURTAD HARUS DIBUNUH.” Jadi
Trifkovic benar bahwa “bukannya algojo2 A Rahman yg ‘mendistorsi’ Islam: melainkan para reforman.”

Ini menunjukkan bahwa Islam Moderat yg menjadi harapan Barat hanyalah sebuah FANTASI, FATA MORGANA. Saat George Bush, Tony Blair dan pemimpin2 Barat lainnya merujuk pada mayoritas Muslim baik2 di negara mereka, mereka mengasumsi bahwa Muslim2 moderat itu menerima prinsip2 sekuler masing2 negara Barat tsb.

Tetapi begitu Muslim 'moderat' menerima yurisprudensi Islam tradisional -- dgn lain kata, begitu mereka patuh pada prinsip2 Islam yg dipercayai mayoritas Muslim sepanjang eksistensi Islam -- mereka tidak hanya akan menyetujui eksekusi murtad, tetapi juga menganggap bahwa prinsip2 Barat spt kebhinekaan dan prinsip2 Deklarasi HAM Internasional, secara fundamental TIDAK KOMPATIBEL dgn Islam.

Cepat atau lambat kita harus menghadapi kenyataan ini. Apalagi dgn peristiwa2 yg berlangsung diseluruh dunia, semakin sulit utk mempertahankan FANTASI ini.

Haidon: blabla ... banyak bual ttg indahnya Islam. Langsung saja ke jawaban nonMuslim ah !
At the outset, I want to briefly outline why, in my view, and of some scholars, that the death penalty for apostasy should be inapplicable. My objective is not to convince Mr. Trifkovic or Mr. Spencer. Genuine moderate reformers have an obligation to engage in research that helps clarify the edicts of Islam towards moderation. We are not, as Mr. Trifkovic and Mr. Spencer point out of, distorting Islam (although it is recognised both gentlemen are merely restating, not endorsing what many Muslims would argue). I find this particularly offensive however as genuine moderate Muslim reformers are often the subject of fatwa and the rulings of apostasy which result in death.

Some scholars have gone so far as to accuse genuine reformers of being the “worst kind” of apostates (“intellectual apostasy”). I need not cite the countless examples of brave Muslim reformers who have set forth clear arguments in favour of moderation, and have suffered greatly. Having been called an apostate (by some Muslims) myself and threatened, I stand in solidarity with Mr. Rahman, and all others who have been deemed as such.

Over the past month I have articulated to Muslims in several forums and meetings our position (FMC) why the death penalty for the “crime” of apostasy is wrong. I will briefly walk my colleagues through it here (understanding full well that they may take issue with it).

The principle source of usul al fiqh is the Qur’an, the primary source (in theory at least) of sharia’. With respect to religious questions, the Qur’an must be consulted first. In cases where there is no clarity from the Qur’an, other, secondary sources are consulted (ie Sunnah, qiyas). The Qur’an could not be any clearer on the fate of those who accept and then reject faith (2:217, 3:176, 5:54, 9:101, 9:74, 9:80, 47:25, 47:27, 47:28, 88:21-260 (not an exhaustive list). They are to be punished by God alone (please note that I have not employed the oft used 2:256). The oft- cited hadith clearly contravenes the Qur’an.

According to most fuqaha, a hadith can limit the application of a general Qur’anic statement, but cannot negate it. For instance, a clear hadith which specifically stated that apostasy is illegal when coupled with high treason or sedition, would arguably be a valid limitation. But this is not the case, and should cast serious doubt on the validity of those hadith. Further, if we look to the actual practice of the Prophet, we will find that there is a lack of sufficient evidence to suggest that the Prophet killed apostates solely for the reason of their apostasy; in other words, he did not follow his own purported tradition.

The Prophet was surrounded by hypocrites (often deemed to be the worst of apostates) at times and even lived amongst them. How did the Prophet deal with them generally (outside of battle)? He prayed for them until he was ordered by Allah to stop. Some Muslims have used the examples of Abdullah ibn Abu al Sarh and Abdullah ibn Khatal to demonstrate that the Prophet ordered the death of apostates. While the Prophet did order their execution however, the evidence points to the fact their apostasy was coupled with the acts of spreading tales which the Prophet deemed false, in the time of war.

The example of Abdullah bin Sa‘d provides some evidence that the Prophet did not (kill apostates) whom only apostatised. While this still may be abhorrent, it does not demonstrate that the Prophet killed apostates, because of their apostasy. The sanctioned killing of apostates (whose sole crime was apostasy) did not arise until the Abassyid period (Abu Bakr’s infamous battle against those who did not pay zakah to the state cannot seriously be viewed as a war against apostates).

However even if the hadith can be construed as valid, the circumstances of when the statements were apparently made must be considered. In other words, the hadith must be viewed contextually. As discussed, the Prophet did not (in practice) kill apostates because of their apostasy alone, but because of a simultaneous or subsequent act which endangered the Islamic state. (Please do not read into this my acceptance or endorsement that the Prophet was justified in killing anyone). When viewed in this context, application of these hadith must be limited.

Mr. Trifkovic’s recitation of Clement Huart resonates with me. It is up to Muslim reformers to develop these new conceptions, and develop a way of disseminating the message. The latter in my view is the real crux of the problem. There are plenty of Muslim scholars, in recent times who have developed some of these “new” approaches: including Mohammed Tata, Kassim Ahmed, Rashid Khalifa, Fazlur Rahman, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, etc. (some of who have suffered the ultimate price for making these arguments). Convincing the Muslim masses of these concepts has been and will continue to be the challenge. Why are we failing? And to be sure, we most definitely are failing.

Mainstream moderate Muslim reform movements are marginalised by the greater communities. I would argue that such movements fare much better in countries like Egypt (the Ibn Khaldoun Centre) than they do in the West. Our organisation for example has extremely low Muslim membership. While some Muslims support FMC, many more Muslims shun our message of reform and moderation, and prefer instead to align themselves with groups like CAIR. Groups like CAIR and MPAC, who have a solid Muslim base could take the lead in reform (they have the capacity and capability). They could start with the issue of apostasy. But alas, we know this will not happen.

Again our challenge as Muslim reformers is to “clarify” and contextualise Islamic teachings, to bring them towards moderation and consistency with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the ICCPR and ICESR. There is a partial and universal moral foundation in the Qur'an contrary to Mr. Trifkovic's assertion. This moral foundation however is clearly not overtly apparent or pervasive in traditional and contemporary Muslim teachings.

FP:
Ok-lah ! Anggaplah Nabi tidak pernah memerintahkan eksekusi terhdp orang ini atau orang itu karena alasan inilah atau itulah ... Tetapi penjelasan macam apa ini ? Jadi Nabi benar pernah terlibat dlm pemberian perintah eksekusi ? Dan pd waktu bersamaan Muslim bersikeras bahwa Nabi adalah orang yg cinta DAMAI ? Ini sangat membingungkan.

Dan Bpk Haidon, anda mengatakan bahwa KITA TIDAK BOLEH ASUMSI bahwa anda mendukung Nabi memerintahkan eksekusi yg anda katakan itu. Apa maksud anda ? Anda seorang Muslim yg percaya Nabi Muhamad tapi anda tidak setuju dgn CARA ia membunuh orang ? Sptnya saya kelewatan sesuatu ??

Bpk Trifkovic, apa pendapat anda ttg diskusi sejauh ini ?

Trifkovic:
Diskusi ini memang memiliki kesan surreal. Secara pribadi saya bersimpati kpd Muslim2 yg moderat, santun dan tidak bisa apa2 dan ingin menjadi "revisionis" tanpa jatuh kedlm kemurtadan, tapi sedihnya upaya mereka itu sudah gagal duluan.

Ini spt mencoba-coba mencari sudut manusiawi faham sosialisme Tirai Besi. Orang2 moderat dan pakar2 terhormat sibuk mondar mandir "menemukan" dan "menemukan kembali" segi2 bagus ajaran Karl Marx yg masih muda -- Karl muda mirip dgn orang2 bijak yg diberi surah2 Mekah yg dini -- tetapi pada akhirnya, Karl yg tua dan dewasa dan Vladimir Ilich (Lenin) dan Iossif Vissarionivich (Stalin)lah, yaitu kaum Medinah Merah, yg memiliki kata akhir.

Keinginan segelintir Muslim utk menolak prinsip2 diskriminatif dan menghina milik Islam, secara teoritis enak dikuping tetapi tidak berarti apa2 dlm memodifikasi Islam sbg sebuah doktrin.

Marxisme dan Islam karena secara struktural sangat mirip. Bahkan kaum moderat Marxist dan Islam yg menolak kekerasan tidak dapat membantah legitimasi bentuk2 organisasi sosial, politik dan budaya yg merupakan manifestasi ajaran mereka -- kalau mereka membantahnya, mereka tidak lagi dianggap sbg pengikut.

Mereka yg masih menganggap diri pengikut, Merah ataupun Hijau, tidak dapat melepaskan satu hal : mantra2 Islam. Kalau mereka melakukannya, mereka menganggap diri tidak lagi eksis, dan hidup tidak lagi memiliki tujuan.

Ajaran Muhamad bahwa "hanya Muslim-lah yang sederajad" adalah kutukan uyg tidak dapat di-eradikasi, kecuali diadakan reformasi radikal dari dalam dirinya -- yang tidak dimungkinkan selama 14 abad yg telah berlalu dan juga tidak akan mungkin dlm jaman2 yang akan datang.


Mansur:
These are tiresome old debates that have taken place among Muslims and between non-Muslims and Muslims. Strange it is, or perhaps not so strange, that you have not heard about them, debates which have led to bloodshed. Right from the outset of Muslim history – as in the history of other faith traditions – there have been quarrels over ideals and practice, over what emerges as the official doctrine and what is driven underground as heresy by the power of the sword. Official Islam (the five schools of Muslim jurisprudence, four Sunni and one Shii, recognized as authoritative) reads the Qur’an as “diktat” and have killed Muslims on the grounds of apostasy by arrogating to itself rights that only belongs to God, so let us be clear about this. Who official Islam consider heretics, the Sufis for instance, read the Qur’an esoterically, understand it in terms of its hidden meaning (batin), and in this reading the Qur’an itself becomes an apostate to official Islam (as it does for instance in the reading by Rumi, who was a judge and jurist). Members on this panel are concerned, or berating, official Islam, even as they arrogate to themselves as official Islam does to dismiss those Muslims who will not concede to the authority of official Islam. And most Muslims, not all, for all sorts of reasons and apologetics, knowingly in the case of the ulema (religious scholars) or in ignorance of Muslim history, contort themselves into denying misuse and abuse of power in the name of Islam, or hadith-traditions, whether fabricated or having some measure of truth to them, of the Prophet.

There is no space here for a wide discussion of these matters where politics went into crafting an official doctrine of Islam and Muslim history, a history that only now because of the conditions available is being contested by Muslims and non-Muslims alike and will be reconstituted by Muslims (contrary to the dogmatism of official Islam) slowly in keeping with universal values of science and democracy.

For Muslims it is not a choice between the one and the other, between science/democracy on the one hand and continuing adherence to an official Islam at variance with our world. Nor is it for non-Muslims to enclose Muslims in their past and deny them, as official Islam does, their future by declaring Islam is frozen and life-denying, and cannot be reconstituted in terms of its ideals that were warped in practice.

And let us be clear that the Prophet of Islam is no less answerable to God for any wrong done by him (He only knows) than is any other mortal. In the Qur’an the Prophet is rebuked and the people are reminded he is a mortal, in other words fallible as all mortals are.

What is being insisted by one side, by those who hold on to official Islam as a frozen shell, is that the Prophet is infallible; and on the other side, those non-Muslims who mock the ideals of Islam by insisting that since the Prophet does not accord with their respective ideals Islam is analogous to Marxism and such other “isms”, in effect it is not a transcendent faith and its worldwide adherents are irredeemably misguided.

Between these two camps, and with these two camps, there can be no communication, and this is the problem of such discussions. Ironically, both camps, however much they insist on being reliant on history – a human craft riddled with human imperfection – are reductive in their views and, hence, ahistorical in their epistemology.

FP: Robert Spencer?

Spencer:
Pak Mansur mengatakan: “Anggota panel ini menghina Islam Resmi seakan Islam Resmi menolak Muslim yg tidak mau tunduk pada otoritas Islam Resmi.”

Ini pernyataan yang sangat klise. Saya sering dituduh telah membantu
Osama bin Laden saat saya berani menunjuk pada fakta bahwa Bin Laden tidak salah tafsir Islam dan bahwa ia didukung oleh Muslim diseluruh dunia. Ini sama saja dgn mengatakan bahwa Winston Churchill adalah simpatisan Nazi karena ia mencoba memperingatkan Inggris akan besarnya bahaya Nazisme saat kebanyakan orang di Inggris berasumsi bahwa Hitler hanyalah manusia konyol yg tidak berarti apa2.

Saya tidak mengecilkan Muslim yg “tidak mau tunduk kpd islam Resmi.” Saya hanya ingin bukti dari Pak Mansur bahwa pandangan Muslim2 'moderat' ini sesuai dgn pandangan Muslim sedunia atau pakar Muslim sedunia yg menolak keempat mazhab yurisprudensi Islam, yg ternyata tidak disukai pak Mansur.

Sayangnya, saya tahu bahwa bukti ini TIDAK ADA.

Muslim reforman hanya segelintir jumlahnya. Ini fakta. Dgn menyatakan Islam sudah dibekukan dan tidak cinta kehidupan, saya bukannya 'menjebak Muslim dalam masa lalu mereka.' Justru saya berharap bahwa Muslim moderat bisa mencapai tujuan mentransformasi Islam. Tapi yang paling penting adalah agar kita mampu membuat penilaian realistik dan utk itu, mau tidak mau kita harus mulai dari analisa teologi dan sejarah Islam.


Haidon:
In response to your query Jamie, as Mr. Mansur has pointed out, the Prophet was fallible, a human being, not a deity despite the fact that Muslims perhaps unwittingly deify him. On several occasions in the Qur’an he is admonished by Allah, this is prima facie evidence of his fallibility.

On a personal level, I find many of the acts attributed to the Prophet in hadith and sirah, immoral, reprehensible and indefensible. These traditions are partially responsible for the travails before Islam.

In my view, reform of Islam does not require questioning “the divine authority on which the institutions of Islam rest”. There is only one divine authority in Islam, the Qur’an. If reform can occur, it will occur through the development of new hermeneutical methods in Tafsir, which contextualise the Qur’an in a modern context; and through the marginalisation of the Sunnah and man-made tradition of Islam from collective Muslim conscience. Both are magnanimous tasks (and arguably aspirational at best). The former requires a concerted effort by a core of “moderate” scholars (yes, some do exist), along side a forceful strategic grassroots “marketing campaign”. It demands an honest discussion of the doctrine of abrogation (nansakh).

On of the natural responses to my argument above (that the penalty of death for apostasy is wrong) is the doctrine of abrogation, which holds that later, more violent verses actually trump verses that were revealed earlier. The latter is easy to rationalise (but almost impossible to implement).

The Qur’an is revelation, Sunnah is not. The hadith were compiled almost one hundred and fifty years after the death of the Prophet. While Muslims have developed so-called scientific methods of verifying hadith, it is dubious at best. Ibn Waraq and Sheikh Ahmed Mansour have discussed the dubious nature of hadith. I will not discuss this further, and I am fully aware that this practically will not occur. Not because it is not a correct and legitimate argument, but because for centuries the confounding (not clarifying) hadith have existed as a duality along side the Qur’an (although most Muslims will deny it).

I would recommend my fellow panellists read the works of Sheikh Ahmed Mansour, Kassim Ahmad and Ibn Waraq (although not Muslim takes a skeptical approach to the Qur’an and Sunnah, but has argued that most hadith are fabrications).

Until an honest discourse emerges among non-Muslims and among Muslims, Islam will remain in stagnation. It pains me to witness the West espouse the idea of “inter-faith” dialogue. I am consistently a participant in such dialogue, although in my view, the current state pf such dialogue renders it useless and actually distorts the real issues. When Muslims are involved, “inter-faith” dialogue becomes a platform for apologetics. Serious discussions on the aspects of Islam that are (or at least should be) a concern to non-Muslims are not engaged out of fear. Instead, these sessions involve a discussion of isolated ayat and traditions, which purport to fall in line with other faiths.

Regarding a theme in Mr. Mansur’s remarks, while I share, at some level, frustration at Mr. Trifkovic and Mr. Spencer’s scepticism about Islam’s prospects for reform, I understand it. However, the key difference (that cannot be overstated) between the Islamist camp and commentators like Mr. Spencer, is that in all likelihood Mr. Spencer would applaud a genuine and broad-based reformist effort, which had universal support, whereas Islamists would not.

While I am not familiar with Mr. Trifkovic’s work, I am familiar with Mr. Spencer’s. All one needs to do is read Mr. Spencer’s work. He makes no judgments himself, but merely highlights the fact that prominent and foundational Islamic scholars have for centuries advocated teachings which contravene the Western understanding of universal human rights. He consistently challenges Muslims to develop effective theological responses to jihadist ideology, and to be able to effectively deliver the responses to the Umma. Will we answer this challenge?

The case of Mr. Rahman, and those of countless others could serve as an optimal starting point. And to some extent it is. I am encouraged by the response of some Muslims. I have engaged with a number of communities (in the West) who have been prepared to have open and honest discussions about this. Out of the couple or so hundred Muslims I have discussed the issue with, a majority have unqualifiedly condemned the punishment of apostasy. Whether this is based on their own understanding of Islamic jurisprudence or of their own personal moral leanings is another question.

Nonetheless it is an encouraging sign.

On some levels it is unfortunate that the Abdul Rahman case was dismissed. Had the case been adjudicated (in which Rahman would have undoubtedly been prosecuted), we would have been able to see the actual resolve of the West. Would they have applied strong pressure or imposed sanctions? The tension between cultural relativism and the universality of human rights has existed since the advent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ambivalent international human rights monitoring framework has not helped resolve this tension. Many nations were silent during the Abdul Rahman affair (particularly New Zealand), and will undoubtedly be silent in future cases due to the absurd stagnation and political unwillingness of politicians to confront the hard questions about Islam.

Unfortunately, prominent states like the United States did not lead by example or “walk the talk” in terms of advocating for Mr. Rahman’s release. At the very least, however, the issue has been given some prominence, despite the fact that those Afghans’ arrested subsequent to Mr. Rahman’s release have had no press coverage, and are of little interest.

In addition to the moral ambivalence of nations, we are also witnessing equal ambivalence amongst the prominent human rights non-governmental organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. While Amnesty did, attempt to intervene (albeit at a very late stage), it has no focused campaign which seeks to highlight the injustices faced by those in Muslim societies. Amnesty was silent in the case of Abu Za’id and countless other apostasy cases.

There is no hope for a peaceful resolution to the “clash of civilisations” if Western ambivalence and Muslim inability to modernise continue. To this end, I and other genuine moderates will continue, as Mr. Trifkovic states, to distort Islam. We have an almost insurmountable task in front of us. At the end of the day, it matters not if Mr. Trifkovic or Mr. Spencer believe we will fail. True reformers need to spend less time concerning themselves with what non-Muslims think, and concentrate all of our efforts towards genuinely developing a solution, within Muslim communities. My organisation, and others are continuing to fail in this regard; instead we have essentially pandered ourselves to non-Muslims. It is this sort of “pandering” that leads some non-Muslim commentators to doubt our motives.

FP:
Tambahan kecil Pak Haidon. Anda mengatakan, “Sayang kasus Abdul Rahman dinyatakan batal,” Saya ingin menambahkan bahwa, kalau kasus itu tidak dinyatakan batal, maka A Rahman akan dieksekusi ! Anda tidak melihat ini ?

Mr. Trifkovic, giliran anda.


Trifkovic:
Kita melengser dari topik Abdul Rahman kpd masalah permanen Islam yi ketidakmampuannya utk direformasi.

Kemungkinan reformasi itu seharusnya terjadi pada thn 1918 dan 1939, saat kaum elit dari dunia Muslim mencoba mendefinisikan identitas budaya dan nasional mereka. Al-Banna dulunya termasuk kaum minoritas dan kaum modernis (termasuk mereka di garis Kiri) berada di puncak kekuasaan.

Namun satu generasi kemudian,setelah bubarnya komunisme, Muslim 'menyadari' bahwa kegagalan2 Muslim diakibatkan kegagalan mereka utk mengikuti Islam murni. Timbullah slogan Islam-as-solution.
Pembedaan antara "extremis" dan "moderat" hanyalah ciptaan tradisi liberal Barat yang tidak lazim bagi dunia Islam. Beda antara mereka hanyalah CARAnya, tapi tujuan akhirnya sama : kejayaan Islam.

Saya ulangi lagi, hanya sebuah pukulan sakit dan sangat keras terhdp aspirasi dan ambisi kaum Islam "traditionalis" yg dapat menahan gelombang jihad, termasuk pengusiran besar2an jihadis dari Barat atau dari negara sekuler lainnya.


Mansur:
Jamie, thanks. In the back and forth that we have gone through in this discussion, the only cheerful words for me are yours. So let me quote them: “The Qur’an instructs Muslims to become discerning individuals wanting freedom? This is news to me. Am I missing something here?” There is, I hope, in these words of yours, apart from your expression of surprise and disbelief, an element of humility which we all need, particularly the intellectuals, scholars, bookworms, scribblers, polemicists, apologists and all such folks who imagine if they can pen a few lines they have trumped the mystery of God. I write these words on the Easter weekend, a weekend of much mystery, when the Son of Man who died on the cross (the Qur’an states Jesus was lifted to the heavens unharmed) between a thief and a beggar would eventually have those who believed in him triumph over the might of Rome.

Let me recall what we got together to discuss: apostasy in Islam and the death penalty for apostates as might have been decided for Abdul Rahman. This is emblematic of Official Islam, and Official Islam’s history from its genesis is steeped in crime. Representatives of Official Islam are so sunken in crime that unlike Macbeth they cannot dare admit their unclean hands will make “The multitudinous seas incarnadine, Making the green one red.” If you invited me on this panel to make apology for these criminals, you sent out an invitation to the wrong Muslim.

On the other side of Official Islam are not the “traditionalists” and the various sects – such as were the Wahhabis once – seeking to become representatives of Official Islam by usurping power as is the purpose of thuggish leaders of al Qaeda. On the other side of Official Islam are those who keep the Words of God and the love for His prophets alive despite persecution, abuse, disdain, and scorn of the intellectuals, and they are the common folks of the Muslim world. Theirs is the world of Unofficial Islam. Perhaps it is time for you, and for some of our panelists, to take some trouble and learn about this Unofficial Islam, and then you might truly be surprised to learn how much the Qur’an speaks about freedom, about God’s greatest blessing to His creation being freedom, and why freedom is heaven’s gift to man so that this lowly creature out of his own discernment (unlike the angels devoid of free choice) and given all the temptations of the flesh yet submits to Him out of love, not fear.

The Qur’an is not your American constitution, or Jeffersonian Declaration of Independence, which are worthy documents representing the best of human efforts in the making of free society. The Qur’an is God’s speech to man, to each individual soul for that person to understand God’s words in accord with his/her capacity, to discover inside themselves their Creator for, as the Qur’an states, He is closer to man than his jugular vein.

Quite rightly, your focus, and that of some of Frontpage, and others since 9/11 is on Islam. This is the Official Islam, and as I said in the earlier round the more the world squeezes this Islam of the hard shell, breaks the carapace of life-denying Islam, then life-affirming and life-sustaining Islam will slowly come to the surface.

In the meantime if you want to go beyond “what is news” to you, then come with me. I will take you to the shrines of Moinuddin Chisti in Ajmer, in the province of Rajasthan, the heart of Hindu India, or Nizamuddin Awliya in Delhi, the historic capital of India, or Datta Ganj Baksh (Mansur al-Hujwiri) in Lahore, Pakistan, or Imam Reza in Mashhad, Iran, or Bahauddin Naqshbandi in Bukhara, Uzbekistan, or Shah Jalal in Sylhet, Bangladesh, or Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi in Konya, Turkey. These are only a few sites from many you may visit. For instance, Shah Jalal left his native home somewhere in the Middle East and traveled deep into the interior of Bengal and settled where he is buried. His name, while he was alive, reached far into the other side of the known world so that when Ibn Battuta, the famed traveler of the early 14th century, left his home in North Africa he made sure of visiting Shah Jalal in Bengal. And if journeying to these places with me is fabulous and improbable, then visit the shrine of Bawa Muhaiyaddeen, a jewel set in the cornfields just outside of Philadelphia, and discover for yourself the meaning of love and freedom as found in the Qur’an that the criminals of Official Islam despite all their efforts have not been able to extinguish.

The living reality of Unofficial Islam lies below the radar of most people, but some are now beginning to pay heed to the voices, for instance of women, that were ignored in the past. It is only when you begin to seek out the voices from the ranks of Unofficial Islam you will discover the untapped resource that can eventually wash away like a tsunami the detritus of Official Islam that has become a plague.

Neither in Ajmer, nor in Philadelphia, adherents of Unofficial Islam distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims, nor pay heed to the life-denying discourses of Official Islam that so readily pronounces judgment as they would on Abdul Rahman, nor quibble over definitions of apostasy and other idiocies that occupy the waking hours of ayatollahs and sheiks. For Unofficial Islam there are only two categories of people: “Muslims” (those who have submitted to authority out of fear) and “Momeen” (believers in God the Merciful and the Day of Reckoning), and “Momeen” (as are President Bush and Prime Minister Blair) are closer and dearer to God than all the Muslims gathered together by the canes and whips of those who serve Official Islam.

History is non-linear, full of paradoxes, irony and, yes, Yogi Berra being a natural philosopher has it right when he says “It ain’t over until it’s over.” None of us will be around to see that moment. But, for instance, just as the immense tragedy of the Holocaust finally gave birth to Israel, the fires that turned to ashes the remains of the Twin Towers might well be the torch that has alighted the flames to melt down the walls of Official Islam and let the Words of God become unfettered to be heard and understood afresh.

Spencer:
Thomas Haidon, orang jujur yg saya hormati, tetapi ia lupa bahwa halangan utama bagi para Muslim reformis adalah dasar2 teologi yg lemah.

Contoh, Haidon mengatakan bahwa nabi adalah manusia tidak sempurna (fallible), tapi ia lupa melihat adanya ayat2 (cf. 48:2; 80:1-12) yg memerintahkan Muslim secara berulang2 agar mematuhi Muhamad (3:32; 3:132; 4:13; 4:59; 4:69; 5:92; 8:1; 8:20; 8:46; 9:71; 24:47; 24:51; 24:52; 24:54; 24:56; 33:33; 47:33; 49:14; 58:13; 64:12).

Malah Qur'an menyebutnya sbg Uswa hasana, yi "contoh kelakuan yg sangat bagus/an excellent model of conduct" (33:21).

Apakah kelakuan Muhamad pantas dicontoh dan dipatuhi ? Info Qur'an ttg pribadi Muhamad sendiri tidak jelas; oleh karena itulah sepanjang sejarah, Muslim menoleh kpd Sunnah utk menemukan spt apa sih sebenarnya kepribadian Muhamad itu dan apa yg ia harapkan dari pengikutnya.

Muslim mengerti, spt dikatakan Haidon, bahwa "Qur'an adalah wahyu, dan Sunnah tidak." Namun, Muslim sendiri merasa tidak mungkin bahwa dlm sebuah buku yg "tidak bisa diciptakan oleh siapapun kecuali Allah" (10:37), dan yg mengandung perintah berulang2 utk mematuhi Muhamad -- tidak akan mereka hormati.

Utk apa Allah memerintahkan pengikut utk melakukan sesuatu yg
tidak mungkin ? Maka beralihlah mereka ke Hadis utk mencari tahu ttg karakter dan tingkah laku Muhamad.

Jelas ada banyak ahadis yg dipalsukan. Malah ada sebuah ilmu teologi Islam yg khusus membahas mana hadis otentik dan mana yg tidak.
Eksistensi ilmu mustalah al-hadith (klasifikasi Hadis) merupakan bukti lagi bahwa upaya Haidon utk memisahkan Muslim dari Hadis tidak akan didukung oleh Umat Islam secara luas: Hadis, bersama dgn hukum2 yg bersumber darinya, begitu berakar dlm teologi dan praktek Islam shg mereka yg menantang fakta ini sudah pasti AKAN DINYATAKAN SHIRK, MURTAD, oleh --apa yg dikatakan Mansur sbg --- "Islam Resmi" - sebuah institusi yg walaupun aneh, tetapi tidak dapat dipungkiri bersifat dominan, berpengaruh dan tersebar luas dan mengakar di seluruh dunia Islam.

Sulit membayangkan bgm Islam yg hanya didasarkan pada Qur'an --yg disukai Haidon--bisa membatalkan perintah berulang2 utk mematuhi Muhamad, TANPA mengacu pada Hadis dan Sirat Rasulullah.

Juga percuma saya utk mempertahankan ILUSI bahwa hanya Islam yg hanya didasarkan pada Quran (a Qur'an-only Islam) tidak akan mengandung hal2 yg menentang hak2 universal dan kehormatan seluruh umat manusia. Mansur mengatakan bawha Jamie Glazov "akan benar2 heran kalau tahu bahwa Qur'an berbicara ttg kebebasan, ttg rahmat terbesar TUhan kpd ciptaanNya yaitu kebebasan, dan bgm kebebasan adalah hadiah terbesar bagi manusia shg mahluk hinanya ini diciptakan sesuai dgn kemauanNya (lain dgn malaikat yg tidak punya kebebasan)
dan mengingat cobaan sexual tetapi mematuhiNya karena rasa cinta yg mendalam dan bukan karena ketakutan."

Saya lebih interes utk emlihat bgm Mansur dan Haidon dapat menyembuyikan ayat2 dlm Qur'an spt yg meneyrukan agar "kaum Ahlil Kitab [khususnya Yahudi dan Kristen] dan penyembah berhala" adalah "MAHLUK YANG PALING NAJIS" (98:6).

Yahudi dan Kristen dibawah kutukan Allah (9:30) dan harus diperangi oleh Muslim sampai mereka "membayar jizyah dgn kemauan tunduk, dan merasa ditundukkan" (9:29). Islam harus "berkausa diatas segala agama" (9:33), dan Muslim harus menyatakan perang terhdp non-Muslim sampai "agama adalah bagi Allah" (2:193). Inikah yg dimaksudkan dgn Muslim sbg dasar2 toleransi dan harmoni antar agama ???

Quran mengatakan kpd Muslim: "Jika kau bertemu kafir dlm medan perang, penggal kepala mereka dan kalau kau menundukkan mereka, ikat tahanan perang itu dgn kuat" (47:4). Itulah justifikasi Islam atas gelombang pemenggalan diseantero Irak dan dimanapun didunia akhir2 ini.

Perintah perang tertera diseluruh Quran. Ini contohnya (ayat2 dibawah ini dlm bhs Inggris. Cari terjemahannya sendiri !)

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate" (9:73).

"The true believers fight for the cause of Allah, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan" (4:76).

"Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. Allah does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage." (2:190-191).

"When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy [i.e., if they become Muslim], allow them to go their way. Allah is forgiving and merciful" (9:5).

"Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" (48:29).

Slavery is taken for granted in the Qur'an: "The penalty for a broken oath is the feeding of ten needy men with such food as you normally offer to your own people; or the clothing of ten needy men; or the freeing of one slave" (5:89). Another verse allows a slaveowner to marry his property: "Take in marriage those among you who are single and those of your male and female slaves who are honest" (24:32). Believers may keep slave-girls as well as wives: "Blessed are the believers, who are humble in their prayers; who avoid profane talk, and give alms to the destitute; who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)" (23:1).

And while the Qur'an does not contain any directive to stone adulterers, it is harsh toward other offenders: "As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands to punish them for their crimes" (5:38). Immoral women are to be imprisoned within the home: "If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way" (4:15).

The Qur'an doesn't treat women who are not guilty of immorality any better. Rather than regarding women as human beings equal to men, it likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223). It declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282). It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3). It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).

Worst of all, the Qur'an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34). It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures "shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated" (65:4).

Pak Mansur, betapa bahagianya saya mendengar bahwa Qur'an "berbicara ttg kebebesan." Tapi tolong jelaskan kpd masy2 Islam bgm mereka dpt mengatasi hancur leburnya Hak Azasi mereka yg diakibatkan ayat2 diatas, sampai sekarang. Ya, keadaan ini tidak akan berhenti kalau ayat2nya tidak dihentikan. Dan ayat2 macam itu semakin meningkatkan keraguan apakah reformasi besar2an dalam Islam benar2 dimungkinkan.


Haidon:
Mr. Spencer has aptly cited most of the ayah that Muslims rely on to justify adherence to hadith. As Mr. Spencer implicitly points out, while the Qur'an does not expressly require Muslims to follow hadith, it dictates, in several instances, that Muslims must obey God and the messenger.

The Qur'an however does not state that Muslims must follow, blindly, a set of traditions that were compiled and written almost two hundred years after the Prophet died. The Qur'an is the authoritative Criteria. While space and time constraints prohibit me providing a thorough exposition into hadith criticism, I will refer Mr. Spencer to Kassim Ahmed's exposition "Hadith: A Re-evaluation" for further (and undoubtedly more cogent and sound) articulation (see also Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour's superb "The Qur'an as the only Source of Law").

The Qur'anic commandments to obey the messenger as cited by Mr. Spencer have been interpreted through hadith. As the Messenger, Muhammad's duty was to proclaim and deliver the Qur'an. The meaning of the command to "obey Allah and his Messenger" is to obey the Message, which is the Qur'an. The Qur'an also affirms that the role of the Prophet is to merely deliver the message (46:9). Unqualified adherence to hadith, which is a hallmark of Wahabism, deifies the Prophet. Further the Qur'an affirms its own completeness on enumerable occasions (3:118, 6:114, 6:126, 7:52, 10:24, 10:37, 16: 89, 17:89, 29:51, 30:28, 39:23, 39:27-28, 41:3, 43:2-3, 44:2). Indeed, the Qur'an predicts the eventual Muslim abandonment of the Qur'an: "The messenger will say, "My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran." (25:30).

Undoubtedly, many hadith provide necessary guidance on methods of worship and general conduct, and are innocuous. The conflict arises, in cases such as apostasy and the traditions, which make many Muslims uncomfortable to talk about. Admittedly as a Muslim, I rely on traditions in relation to salat and zakah. However, according to some fiqh scholars, this tradition is no less sahih than is the Prophet's alleged sexual violation of Aisha. How can we as Muslims reconcile this? The failure to confront the way we view this body of tradition will lead to further stagnation. I do not agree as do some Muslim commentators do, that it is unnecessary to undergo this critical re-evaluation.

Moral Resolution of the apostasy issue will only occur through this re-evaluation.

I recognise the challenges that the Ahl'al-Quran face in effectively delivering a workable roadmap that forces Muslims to question hadith. I also recognise, that this approach may be the least amenable path towards reformation. At the very least however, Muslims must re-consider the methodology of Hadith-Qur'anic reconciliation. Ideally hadith which are prima facie inconsistent with the Qur'an, should be discarded. The problem with this approach however is the doctrine of abrogation, as it is understood by many scholars, in that it is difficult to say that certain unpalatable hadith are inconsistent with the Qur'an ( surat as-saif).

Reformation must be a gradual process in order to succeed. Before rational hermeneutical approaches to interpreting hadith can be thoroughly scoped, developed and implemented, Muslims must re-think their approach to the Qur'an first, and move away from the Wahhabi analytical literalist method ( al-'ittijah al-tajzi'I fi al-tafsir) towards an enhanced thematic approach ('ittijah al-tawhidi aw al-mawdu'I fi al-tafsir) .

Mr. Spencer asks the question that must be answered by reformists: How do we "blunt" the force of the verses which foment violence and intolerance among Islamists? If this question cannot be honestly and comprehensively addressed by Muslim reformers, reformist efforts are meaningless. I can provide no easy answer, as there are many dimensions to this problem that I do not believe I am competent enough to answer to.

But in my view, a primary exercise will be for there to be Umma-wide reconsideration of the scope and operation of the doctrine of abrogation. (The ground work for this discourse has been laid by Mohammed Al-Ghazali, Sheikh Rashid Rida, and Sheikh Al-Khidri). As long this doctrine prevails, reconciling Medinan-Maccan verses will be a difficult task. The adoption of a contextualist-thematic approach to Qur'anic interpretation will also be necessary. Such an approach, would examines ayah against the whole of the Qur'an and the historical context in which it was revealed to indicate that the application of the commandments set forth are relevant for that particular time period only. The Free Muslim Coalition is currently working towards a project for the development of a comprehensive tafsir that would employ this technique.

Again, some of the views I have expressed here must be qualified due to the reality of the current state of the Muslim world. But despite the scepticism of Mr. Spencer, Mr Trifkovic and others, we are making small gains, and some "quick wins". This should not be overlooked or scoffed at.

Mr. Mansur's earlier frustration at Muslim and non-Muslim marginalisation of reformers is understood. And again, while Robert Spencer provides legitimate critique, others do not. I take particular issue with Mr. Hugh Fitzgerald, a colleague of Mr. Spencer, who go beyond legitimate and academic criticism of Islam (which is needed). Mr. Fitzgerald, has engaged in unprovoked personal attacks on genuine moderate Muslims (Professor Khaleel Mohammed, Mstafa Akyol and others), and has denigrated the efforts of many Muslim reformers. Mr Fitzgerald in his daily postings at Jihad Watch has called for, among other absurdities, the unprecedented denial of some civil rights for law abiding Muslims in the West, and has advocated the brutal oppression of Muslims in China and other countries, and has further argued that Shi'a and Sunni violence is a good thing for the "Infidel's".

While Fitzgerald on occasion makes cogent and "spot on" arguments, his analysis is clouded by his unabated hatred for everything that is Islamic. To be sure Mr. Fitzgerald has every right to state what he pleases, and I would defend his right, particularly in the post-Danish cartoons context, but I do not have to like or agree with what he has to say. Does this make me less moderate? I think not.

I think a natural response of some reformers and pseudo-reformers, post 9/11 was to focus on trying to convince (rather unconvincingly) non-Muslims of our good intentions, instead of focusing on doctrinal reform. That course is now beginning to shift. The catalysts have not been acts of standard terrorism that we are so accustomed to seeing, but from the fallout over the cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim response to the criminal charges lodged against Mr Abdul Rahman. Mr. Mansur, a true and prominent moderate (if he does not mind me calling him as such), will undoubtedly be aware of this. I am encouraged by the discussions coming from the Australasian Muslim communities who relied on dialogue and not violence or rhetoric to express their views on the topic.

Trifkovic:
Elemen esensial reformasi adalah ditemukannya kembali nilai2 moralitasi universal yg bisa membebaskan 1/5 penduduk dunia dari dehumanisasi selama 14 abad. Seorang reforman harus menegaskan bahwa perintah2 Quran dan preseden Muhamad harus diukur dgn Logika dan Hati.

Apakah Muslim bisa melakukan ini dan TETAP MENGAKU sbg Muslim? Bisakah ia menerapkan prinsip2 Logika dan Hati terhdp ajaran Islam yg standar baik-buruknya sangat berbeda dgn standar universal, tanpa si reforman kena ancaman hukuman mati dari Muslim sejagad ?
Saya tidak yakin ! Kalau Allah menuntut pengikutnya agar taat, walau keputusanNya tidak didasarkan pada rasio, Muslim akan tetap mengikutinya.

Mansur:
Jamie, a point is rapidly reached in discussions of this nature when nothing further might be squeezed from what has turned arid. If what I have stated this far remains elusive then I cannot make it any simpler, except repeating myself.

Let me try just one more time.

Human understanding of the natural world and beyond evolves over time, and yet we have tremendous disparity among us in our comprehension of the world of which we are ourselves a part. The unequal understanding is reflected among other things in the immense disparity among us between wealth and poverty, between health and sickness, between freedom and its denial. And yet the world is the same world accessible to all equally, but not understood or “read” well equally. Over time the disparity between the various understandings of the world bring individuals and peoples to grow and prosper, or decay and vanish. Cultures and civilizations have gone through this cycle, and even as we engage in this discussion we are witnessing the cycle unfold.

My reading of the world around me is what once constituted the “Official Islamic” civilization, with all its faults and some of its vitality, is in its death throes. The sooner it is interred the lower will be the cost incurred to Muslims and non-Muslims alike as a result of the destructive process of its demise. The burial of “Official Islam” will, most importantly, liberate Muslims to think afresh, to borrow, adapt, and grow once again. In this process of liberation many Muslims, perhaps even a majority, might seek comfort and renewal in other faith traditions and escape from the brutalizing effects of “Official Islam” not dissimilar to what occurred so many times in history such as when Persians, or North Africans, or Hindus and Buddhists left their faith-traditions turned life-denying to embrace Islam, or as Goths, Nordics, Celts and others embraced Christianity.

Such changes occur for many reasons, but one reason undeniable is that people leave the faith-traditions into which they are born when these become unbearable. “Official Islam” has become unbearable, and there is a vast corpus of Muslim writings on this matter. Let me just cite two names that your readers might want to be acquainted with, Muhammad Iqbal (1876-1938) from India, and Malek Bennabi (1903-73) from Algeria. It is not a failure of imagination and critical thinking on the part of Muslims to engage in what Iqbal called for, and Bennabi echoed, the “reconstruction” of Islam, the reading of the Qur’an with fresh understanding consistent with the spirit of the age, of our time of science and democracy, and thus seek reconciliation of the eternal message of the Qur’an – its ethic of freedom and responsibility – with the perennial quest of an individual, man and woman, for truth, love, justice and mercy that leads to God.

I barely have time and space here to start quoting verses of the Qur’an, or for that matter the Bible. This is what folks do, those of “Official Islam” and those who engage with them in the game of verse-quoting, each side scoring points and seeking to best the other while the world goes awry. Long have we known that devil can quote the scripture better than saint; the pertinent question is whose conduct defines who is devil and who is saint.

What matters is God’s chosen or elect in this world and on the Day of Reckoning is, as the Quran states (49.13), the one most righteous in conduct.

The idea of freedom, both implicit (batin) and explicit (zahir) in the Quran, means prior existence of choice, of discerning between good and evil, right and wrong, and individual responsible for consequences that follow of choosing. Without prior existence of choice there is no freedom, and by denying choice freedom is annulled. When God hears the argument of the devil and leaves him alone to tempt man, instead of crushing him (7:11-18) evidently God bestows His trust in man and leaves him free to choose and bear the consequences. This is why man is grander in creation than angel for angel, secure from any temptation of the devil, is bereft of freedom to err, whereas man by his conduct can surpass angel in sublimity or descend to unredeemable misery. Only God knows what is in the heart of man, but the world can bear witness and judge his conduct.
Last edited by ali5196 on Sun Aug 27, 2006 2:17 pm, edited 12 times in total.
ali5196
Posts: 16757
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Post by ali5196 »

The redacted Qur’an we hold in our hands has 114 chapters of varying length and some 6,666 verses. :shock: :shock: :shock: (THE SIGN OF THE BEAST ???) But then a verse of the Qur’an reads, “If all the trees of the earth were pens and the oceans ink, with many more oceans for replenishing them, the colloquy of God would never come to an end” (31:27). So for every verse of the Qur’an there is another to be cited, for any wrong that might be avenged lawfully there is the choice to be merciful and let judgment be with God, for any war to be just and rightfully waged there has to be freedom at stake, the freedom to worship freely, the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Righteousness is not pacifism and surrender of freedom, and if it were so then there would be no place for goodness and virtue. Men and women must choose to be free, and in that act of choosing is the risk of making false choices unleashing the struggle between good and evil.

Nothing said here is new and the only surprise is the need for repeating. “Official Islam” arrogates to itself power to deny choice, hence annulling freedom, and dictating what is right and wrong to Muslims and non-Muslims alike out of its own authoritarian inclination. As I said in the earlier round, the case of Abdul Rahman is emblematic of “Official Islam,” of making Islam into a state (or better still a prison run by wardens of “Official Islam”) and thus abjuring Islam by a Muslim is viewed as treason punishable by death. To “Unofficial Islam” the verse “there is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) needs no qualification, and trumps all the endless mumbo-jumbo of “Official Islam.” Now obviously, “Official Islam” rules in the guise of being faithful to God’s words, but what is the judgment of the world of this conduct. The answer is also obvious. No amount of quotations from all the various books of fiqh, nor legal contortions of Muslim apologists, nor ranks upon ranks of ayatollahs and sheikhs with their idiocies, will obscure the fact that this conduct is contrary to what is abundantly plain and simple in a verse without ambiguity that religion is a matter of an individual’s conscience and cannot be subjected to the power of an earthly authority.

I am asked how damage done to human rights and human dignities by certain verses of the Qur’an can be overcome. It is rather simple and no different than such damages we hope will be overcome by people who suffered the totalitarianism of Soviet Communism and Nazism: first by helping defeat them (pacifists would surrender) by waging a just war with means in accordance with the situation, interning them and freeing those subject to such totalitarianism by lending them support to build a free and democratic society. This is indeed what is taking place in Iraq, and if Iraqis after having been delivered from tyranny to freedom then chooses to make a new hell for themselves by resurrecting some version of “Official Islam” they shall bear then the sole responsibility of their own misery.

It is pointed to me that the Qur’an condones slavery. This is the literalism of “Official Islam” parading as an absolute critique of the Qur’an. Slavery is a human condition as much as is our frailty and our mortality. It is ironically slavishness to be imprisoned by one stereotypical example of slavery in history, of buying and selling humans as chattels for their work as witnessed, for instance, in American history. I invite you to come with me to India, not a Muslim majority country, and witness slavery in the form of casteism, or to Africa, or Latin America, or in the chain gang shops in the interior of China, and see the wage labour at one dollar a day, or even less, of women and children in sweltering heat breaking stones, or drawing water, or selling themselves in tourist trade for a pittance to barely breathe.

The Qur’an speaks of slavery and instructs those who are more fortunate to show mercy and charity, kindness and fair treatment, of providing freedom (from bonded labour or wage labour) by provision of fair earnings so life may be lived by less fortunate with some dignity. It is not slavery that is being condoned (such may be the reading of “Official Islam” justifying the evil of slavery we have witnessed in Sudan), rather the human condition is identified that might change in its outer form and appearance but in substance remains with us and, therefore, the caution of how we conduct ourselves with discernment and mercy even as we seek mercy for ourselves. In a fair society such condition might get transcended and then these verses of the Qur’an will be redundant.

Similarly, on matters of gender, sex, inheritance, etc, there is the literalism of the Qur’an read by “Official Islam” and the vastly different comprehension of “Unofficial Islam” whose members are persecuted, silenced, and often physically eliminated. Take for instance punishment about adultery, about producing four reliable witnesses to indict a woman and a man of adulterous behaviour. Now where, may I ask, even in as open and transparent a society as found in the West, a woman and a man will engage in adulterous behaviour (unless they are publicly in sex trade) to be witnessed by four reliable individuals? The minimum condition of reliability of witnesses is sufficiently stringent to make any such charge absurd. I resist getting here into the discussion of whether free and consensual sex between two adults is adultery. But “Official Islam” at any time can produce four reliable witnesses to indict any person, or couple, then punish them and make for a hell of a society as Afghanistan under the Taliban became, or as so much of Muslim majority countries remain trapped in their own absurdities and criminality.

In respect to the Qur’an condemning Jews and Christians, these verses can be countered by other verses that assure Jews and Christians, and all believers, of mercy, justice, peace, ever-lasting life in concordance with good deeds for only God knows what resides in the soul of man be he a Muslim or non-Muslim. While “Official Islam” highlights such verses to privilege itself over others, “Unofficial Islam” reads the Qur’an as a universal message warning people, whether they are among Jews, Christians, Muslims and others, of the consequences of their misdeeds without any differentiation. And yes, verses from chapter 9 of the Qur’an are readily and frequently cited as evidence of the cruelty and violence in Islam. Muhammad as God’s messenger was instructed after all peaceful and persuasive means of preaching God’s message was exhausted among an indifferent people disposed to violence to defeat his persecutors, to destroy idolatry and establish Islam. But “Official Islam” that arrogates to itself the right to act as Muhammad also bears the responsibility for the consequences of what must follow when the act is unjust, wrong, or evil as so much of “Official Islam” is. History bears proof of arrogant “Official Islam” repeatedly defeated by those whom it labelled as “unbelievers,” a reminder to discerning souls not to be deceived by labels. Haven’t we witnessed the irony of chapter 9 turned against the Taliban, of these purveyors of “Official Islam” being scattered to the winds by the just arms of those who liberated Afghanistan? If we keep faith with justice chapter 9 will be the epitaph of “Official Islam.”

The Qur’an will be read variously, and understood differently. A chasm separates “Official Islam” and “Unofficial Islam.” The former is authoritarian, denying individuals their freedom that is gift from God; the latter cherishes freedom, so that individuals may be reckoned by God on their conduct in conformity with the Qur’an’s advice, “So try to excel in good deeds. To Him will you return in the end, when He will tell you of what you were at variance” (5:48).

And yes, such comprehension of the Qur’an and building a free society by Muslims with support and goodwill of those who cherish freedom are not unimaginable. But first “Official Islam” will need to be interred for Muslims to find liberation, rediscover God as the ever-merciful Lord of the Universe and not the capricious Master of the Day of Reckoning as rendered in self-projection by Macbeths of “Official Islam.” As I also observed in the earlier round, “Unofficial Islam” have always been there below the radar, an Islam that strives for the unity of the Heart and the Mind of a believer in submitting freely out of love to God that Blaise Pascal as a good Christian understood observing, “We know truth, not only by reason, but also by the heart.”

Spencer:
Saya menghargai upaya Haidon membela pentingnya Islam yang hanya didasarkan Qur’an yg bebas dari Hadis. Mudah2an ia dan Muslim2 sepaham dgnnya bisa sukses merekonstruksi islam yg manusiawi YG MENGIJINKAN MUSLIM PINDAH AGAMA, misalnya.

Pada akhirnya mereka menghadapi tugas berat, bukan karena skeptisme orang2 spt saya ataupun Trifkovic, TETAPI KARENA PANDANGANNYA INI SAMA SEKALI ASING DLM TRADISI ISLAM.

Saya juga menyayangkan dan heran akan serangannya terhdp Hugh Fitzgerald, rekan saya di Jihad Watch. Haidon mengeluh bahwa Fitzgerald “terlibat dlm serangan pribadi yg tidak diprovokasi terhdp Muslim2 moderat” termasuk Khalil Mohammed – ini tuduhan ironis, mengingat Khalil Mohammed dan Muslim2 moderat lainnya yg justru MENYERANG KAMI TANPA PROVOKASI.

Jadi saya ingin menjawab atas nama rekan saya, Fitzgerald. Ini jawabannya:

Dlm diskusi yg seharusnya membahas cara2 reformasi Islam, Thomas Haidon justru tiba-tiba lari dari pembahasan ayat2 Quran dan malah memulai dgn serangan ad hominem terhdp saya.

Ia mengatakan bahwa saya “melewati batas sah dan akademik mengritik Islam.” Apa maksudnya ? Apa kritik yg “sah” dan apa kritik yg "tidak sah” di mata Thomas Haidon ? Pak Haidon sebaiknya memberi contoh2 kritik yg “sah” maupun “tidak sah,” shg pembaca bisa menentukan sendiri mana yg sah dan mana yg tidak.

Tuduhan2 lainnya juga TIDAK JELAS ! Bgm saya, ataupun siapapun bisa menjawab tuduhan bahwa kami “menyerukan bagi dibatasinya hak2 sipil Muslim2 yg taat hukum di Barat ”? Apa maksudnya ? Katakan, dan saya akan menjawab dgn detil, dimulai dgn membahas “Muslim taat hukum”
spt taat kpd Konstitusi AS dan prinsip2nya -- yg dituntut dari semua orang yg ingin menjadi penduduk AS. Ingat bahwa dalam Islam, semua UU buatan manusia adalah TIDAK SAH ! Hanya UU yg datang dari Allah yg sah. Nah, bgm Haidon bisa berkelit dari fakta ini ?

Dan apa maksud Thomas Haidon dgn “dukungan bagi opresi brutal terhdp Muslim di Cina” ? Mungkinkah Haidon bermaksud bahwa kita harus
memprotes penindasan Cina terhdp Muslim minoritas, serupa dgn cara
orang memprotes penindasan Cina terhdp Tibet ??

Kalau Haidon tidak bisa menjelaskan, maka ia harus belajar lagi sejarah perang dan pemanfaatan sekutu.

Dan lagi2 Haidon menuduh saya “memprovokasi serangan atas pribadi”
mereka yg ia sebut Muslim “reformis.” Mereka yg menyatakan diri sbg Muslim “reformis,” yg mendasarkan reformasi mereka pada kebutaan terhdp teks dan realitas Islam, MEMANG PERLU DILEDEK ! Realitasnya adalah bahwa 1 milyar Muslim TIDAK AKAN MENDENGARKAN TEORI2 MUSTAFA AKYOL ttg “sola scriptura.” Lagipula Qur’an sendiri yg menjelekkan diri sendiri.

Reforman2 Muslim yg beken saat ini hanyalah mempromosikan diri sendiri. Perhatian, pengelu2an, honorarium pembicaraan, sumbangan bagi yayasan2 Muslim2 “reforman” ini (lihat sendiri daftar penerima uang dari the Carnegie Foundation) membelalakkan mata ! Mengapa saya tidak boleh meledek mereka yg memang patut diledek ? Mengapa saya harus berpura2 bahwa mereka jujur dan tidak menyembunyikan tujuan akhir, yaitu penyebaran Islam dgn cara apapun, termasuk MEMBOHONG ? Anda pikir Kamal Nawash tidak mempromosikan Kamal Nawash? Anda pikir Mustafa Akyol tidak mempromosikan Mustafa Akyol? Bahwa Khalil Mohamad tidak menikmati honorarium dari sinagog2 tempatnya ia berbicara ttg perlunya Islam direformasi dan ttg pentingnya peran Khalil Mohamad dlm tugas penting ini ? Siapa sih Khalil Muhamad ?

Saya malah lebih respek dgn orang2 spt Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Azam Kamguian, Irfan Khawaja – mereka dilahirkan sbg Muslim, melihat dgn mata kepala sendiri wajah buruk Islam, meninggalkannya, mengumumkannya dan menghadapi risiko dan pengorbanan pribadi yang sangat besar.

Tuduhan Haidon bahwa saya menunjukkan “kebencian tidak terpadam terhdp Islam” adalah omong kosong dan BOHONG. Tapi saya tidak ambil pusing karena memang tradisi Islam dan Muslim utk menuduh macam2 terhdp pengritik mereka.

Saya harus menegaskan kpd pembaca mengapa Thomas Haidon tiba2 mengalihkan topik ketika ia tengah membahas Qur’an, Hadith, abrogasi dan kemungkinan reformasi dan lalu menyerang saya. Lho KOK ?? Tapi dlm daftar tuduhannya itu, ia tidak menawarkan satu artikel, paragraf ataupun pernyataan saya yg katanya menghina para Muslim reformis ataupun Islam. (Ayo Haidon ! Berikan contohmu ! Jangan cuma bual doang !!)

Nah, utk membantunya saya akan meyumbang satu kalimat yg sering saya ulangi dlm situs saya. Jelas Haidon akan menganggapnya menghina, dan 'tidak sah.'

Ini kalimat saya: “Kehadiran dlm skala besar Muslim di negara2 Barat membawa situasi yg lebih tidak enak, lebih mahal dan lebih bahaya secara fisik bagi penduduk asli yg kafir.”

Nah, silahkan anda tentukan sendiri apakah kalimat diatas menghina, atau akurat.

Jadi, tuan Moderator – keyakinan Mansur akan hebatnya “Islam Tidak Resmi,” bagi saya sama saja dgn memuji fata morgana. Saat saya melihat Islam Tidak Resmi ini mempengaruhi dunia Islam dan para mujahedin utk meletakkan senjata mereka, BARU AKAN SAYA UBAH PANDANGAN SAYA. Hanya pada saat 'Islam Tidak Resmi' ini berhasil meng-counter kebohongan membosankan Muslim Moderat dan asasinasi memalukan oleh Muslim tulen, pada saat itulah saya akan angkat topi saya dan bertepuk tangan keras2. Tapi sementara itu, jangan minta saya utk mengangkat topi utk FATA MORGANA !


FP:
Thomas Haidon, Salim Mansur, Serge Trifkovic and Robert Spencer, TERIMA KASIH.
ali5196
Posts: 16757
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Post by ali5196 »

Post Reply