ugualità per tutti o alcuni ??
Posting ini bukanlah serangan terhadap suatu agama. Saya bukan ahli politik, bukan theologist, bukan filosof. Bukan siapa-siapa.
Dan saya pun tidak menikmati harus memikirkan, apalagi menganalisa, pertentangan-pertikaian-bentrok fundamentalisme intra/antar-agama. Tapi mau gimana lagi, ini kisah klasik lebih dari satu milenium usianya yang sangat mungkin sekali tak akan berpenghujung.
Lagi-lagi ideologi Timur versus Barat.
Yang ingin saya kemukakan adalah: saya selalu mengikuti berita tanah air, RI, via media online, koran-koran edisi maya, namun seminggu terakhir ini tak sekalipun saya temukan berita yang menyinggung adanya ancaman hukuman mati bagi seorang pria Afghan. Berita ini pun saya temukan tak sengaja saat tengah “menyisir” mencari berita menarik di Google News edisi Inggris dan Perancis. Masukkan kata kunci “Abdul Rahman Afghanistan” dan voilà, hasil pencariannya cukup exhaustive.
Jadi, Abdul Rahman (foto samping) konvert menjadi seorang kristiani 16 tahun silam. Kemudian, entah kabur atau demi karir, ia bekerja untuk sebuah organisasi berbasis kristian di Pakistan. Lalu pindah dan sempat tinggal beberapa saat di Jerman. Menyusul tumbangnya rejim Taliban, ia memutuskan kembali ke kampungnya sekaligus mengklaim hak asuh anak-anaknya. Oleh sanak keluarganya sendiri, ia dilaporkan kepada polisi Kabul, dan ia pun ditangkap dengan tuduhan pelanggaran hukum syariah, konversi/ keluar dari agama Islam, yang berarti hukuman mati menunggunya. [So much for family love!]
Dan minggu lalu, sang Paus, the Pope, menulis surat kepada Presiden Afghan sekaligus menyiarkan ke media / press permohonan clemency bagi Rahman.
Dan pertanyaan saya: politically, mengapa hal ini tidak menjadi berita, apalagi tajuk utama, di Indonesia? Mengapa mereka yang biasanya paling sigap menenteng bambu ke depan kedubes negara asing di Jakarta, berdemo tanpa lelah menentang kebijakan Barat, tidak terdengar gaungnya? Kemana para pemuka agama, imam dan dai, yang kadang tampak zealous menyiarkan suaranya dalam kasus ini? Mengapa harus the Pope atau pemimpin negara Barat, yang notabene dianggap «infidels» «those on the other side of the moet» bagi kelompok ekstrim, yang lebih dahulu berusaha menyelamatkannya, apakah pemimpin komunitas Arab, Timur Tengah, Indonesia dan Malaysia sibuk menenggelamkan kepalanya di bawah bantal empuk mereka masing-masing?? Secara asal, mungkin bisa dijawab, itu kan karena Rahman bergama kristen, tapi menurut saya ini hanyalah “compassion”. Setahu saya, dan semua teman-teman saya pun begitu, kebanyakan Muslim adalah moderat, lemah lembut, baik hati, tidak memaksakan keyakinan mereka kepada non-practicants, apalagi meng-illegalkan konversi agama hingga harus dilenyapkan jiwanya, atau karena seseorang berstatus ex-muslim ia pun tak lagi berharga di mata compatriots tanah kelahirannya. Atau mungkin saya yang terlalu naif?
Bukankah lebih menyentuh jika kampanye memperluas, memperdalam pengetahuan, memperkecil jurang perbedaan, miskonsepsi terhadap agama tertentu yang kini ramai dilakukan di mana-mana diikuti praktek nyata akan kebaikan agama tsb dari dalam? Ataukah harus pilih-pilih dahulu?
Compassion = con passion (with passion) (dengan semangat); semangat yang saat ini sangat pudar atau pilih kasih.
Dan saya pun tidak menikmati harus memikirkan, apalagi menganalisa, pertentangan-pertikaian-bentrok fundamentalisme intra/antar-agama. Tapi mau gimana lagi, ini kisah klasik lebih dari satu milenium usianya yang sangat mungkin sekali tak akan berpenghujung.
Lagi-lagi ideologi Timur versus Barat.
Yang ingin saya kemukakan adalah: saya selalu mengikuti berita tanah air, RI, via media online, koran-koran edisi maya, namun seminggu terakhir ini tak sekalipun saya temukan berita yang menyinggung adanya ancaman hukuman mati bagi seorang pria Afghan. Berita ini pun saya temukan tak sengaja saat tengah “menyisir” mencari berita menarik di Google News edisi Inggris dan Perancis. Masukkan kata kunci “Abdul Rahman Afghanistan” dan voilà, hasil pencariannya cukup exhaustive.
Jadi, Abdul Rahman (foto samping) konvert menjadi seorang kristiani 16 tahun silam. Kemudian, entah kabur atau demi karir, ia bekerja untuk sebuah organisasi berbasis kristian di Pakistan. Lalu pindah dan sempat tinggal beberapa saat di Jerman. Menyusul tumbangnya rejim Taliban, ia memutuskan kembali ke kampungnya sekaligus mengklaim hak asuh anak-anaknya. Oleh sanak keluarganya sendiri, ia dilaporkan kepada polisi Kabul, dan ia pun ditangkap dengan tuduhan pelanggaran hukum syariah, konversi/ keluar dari agama Islam, yang berarti hukuman mati menunggunya. [So much for family love!]
Dan minggu lalu, sang Paus, the Pope, menulis surat kepada Presiden Afghan sekaligus menyiarkan ke media / press permohonan clemency bagi Rahman.
Dan pertanyaan saya: politically, mengapa hal ini tidak menjadi berita, apalagi tajuk utama, di Indonesia? Mengapa mereka yang biasanya paling sigap menenteng bambu ke depan kedubes negara asing di Jakarta, berdemo tanpa lelah menentang kebijakan Barat, tidak terdengar gaungnya? Kemana para pemuka agama, imam dan dai, yang kadang tampak zealous menyiarkan suaranya dalam kasus ini? Mengapa harus the Pope atau pemimpin negara Barat, yang notabene dianggap «infidels» «those on the other side of the moet» bagi kelompok ekstrim, yang lebih dahulu berusaha menyelamatkannya, apakah pemimpin komunitas Arab, Timur Tengah, Indonesia dan Malaysia sibuk menenggelamkan kepalanya di bawah bantal empuk mereka masing-masing?? Secara asal, mungkin bisa dijawab, itu kan karena Rahman bergama kristen, tapi menurut saya ini hanyalah “compassion”. Setahu saya, dan semua teman-teman saya pun begitu, kebanyakan Muslim adalah moderat, lemah lembut, baik hati, tidak memaksakan keyakinan mereka kepada non-practicants, apalagi meng-illegalkan konversi agama hingga harus dilenyapkan jiwanya, atau karena seseorang berstatus ex-muslim ia pun tak lagi berharga di mata compatriots tanah kelahirannya. Atau mungkin saya yang terlalu naif?
Bukankah lebih menyentuh jika kampanye memperluas, memperdalam pengetahuan, memperkecil jurang perbedaan, miskonsepsi terhadap agama tertentu yang kini ramai dilakukan di mana-mana diikuti praktek nyata akan kebaikan agama tsb dari dalam? Ataukah harus pilih-pilih dahulu?
Compassion = con passion (with passion) (dengan semangat); semangat yang saat ini sangat pudar atau pilih kasih.
postscriptum. Update terakhir, bung Rahman akan diberi visa proteksi oleh Italia, dengan agama yang disandangnya tak ada sejengkalpun tanah Afghanistan yang siap menerimanya. Jikalau ia diadili, maka kemungkinan ia terus hidup virtually nil. Presiden Afghan bahkan sempat didesak oleh komunitas internasional, ia pun menjanjikan secara verbal kepada Chancellor Jerman ia akan berusaha menginventervensi “menyelamatkan” si terdakwa. Menurut tulisan di media, ada dua solusi legal: (1) Abdul Rahman diperiksa kondisi psikis-nya, jika ia dinyatakan mentally ill, jiwanya lepas dari eksekusi. Euh ... sejak kapan seseorang dilabeli “sakit mental” hanya karena ia berbeda agama dengan yang lain? ; (2) Abdul Rahman me-renounce agama yang dipeluknya dan kembali ke Islam. Ini yang lebih di-prefer oleh pemimpin konservatif Afghan.
Melalui bacaan lebih lanjut, saya mengetahui bahwa judiciary Afghanistan memiliki paradoks, yang saat membingungkan komunitas internasional, konstitusi Afghan (nb. yang dipengaruhi oleh invasi Amerika dan modernisasi à la Washington) mengakui Deklarasi Universal Umat Manusia, akan tetapi hukum tertinggi yang diakui dan akan dirujuk adalah hukum syariah. Tidak ada yang salah dengan memiliki hukum agama di sebuah negara non-sekuler. Tapi salah satu butir hukum syariah Afghan menyebut, setiap Muslim yang keluar dari Islam akan dieksekusi.
Saya sadar bahwa banyak hukum yang tampak barbar berasal dari zaman pertengahan, adalah produk kultural, interpretasi sekte tertentu, atau miskonsepsi akan esensi agama tersebut. Tetapi, masa sekarang ini, masih patutkah sebuah komunitas (apapun) mem-persecute seseorang hanya karena ia memiliki atau berpidah keyakinan lain?
Atau hukum syariah sungguh tak kenal kasih sayang universal? Pedang pun harus melayang tak kenal ampun?
Melalui bacaan lebih lanjut, saya mengetahui bahwa judiciary Afghanistan memiliki paradoks, yang saat membingungkan komunitas internasional, konstitusi Afghan (nb. yang dipengaruhi oleh invasi Amerika dan modernisasi à la Washington) mengakui Deklarasi Universal Umat Manusia, akan tetapi hukum tertinggi yang diakui dan akan dirujuk adalah hukum syariah. Tidak ada yang salah dengan memiliki hukum agama di sebuah negara non-sekuler. Tapi salah satu butir hukum syariah Afghan menyebut, setiap Muslim yang keluar dari Islam akan dieksekusi.
Saya sadar bahwa banyak hukum yang tampak barbar berasal dari zaman pertengahan, adalah produk kultural, interpretasi sekte tertentu, atau miskonsepsi akan esensi agama tersebut. Tetapi, masa sekarang ini, masih patutkah sebuah komunitas (apapun) mem-persecute seseorang hanya karena ia memiliki atau berpidah keyakinan lain?
Atau hukum syariah sungguh tak kenal kasih sayang universal? Pedang pun harus melayang tak kenal ampun?
Pope pleads for Afghan convert
Reuters
Vatican City: Pope Benedict has written to Afghan President Hamid Karzai asking that charges be dropped against a man facing a possible death sentence for converting from Islam to Christianity, the Vatican said.
The appeal was sent in the pope’s name by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who told him that the pope’s appeal was inspired by “profound human compassion” and by the “firm belief in the dignity of human life and by respect for every person’s freedom of conscience and religion.”
President George W Bush and other Western leaders have expressed concern at the threatened death penalty for Abdur Rahman, 40. Sharia, on which Afghan law is partly based, stipulates death for apostasy. “I am certain, Mr President, that the dropping of the case against Mr Rahman would bestow great honour upon the Afghan people and would raise a chorus of admiration in the international community,” the letter said. The Afghan constitution says “no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam” but also says it will abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines freedom of religion.
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=5748
Killing apostates not in Qu‘ran but a strongly held view in the masses
by Bernardo Cervellera
Fundamentalist theologians have led people to believe that apostasy undermines the unity of the Ummah, the Muslim community. But for Prof Francesco Zannini, who teaches at the Pontifical Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies, the issue is hotly debated amongst Muslims.
Rome (AsiaNews) – The recent case of Abdul Rahman, a Christian convert from Islam threatened with the death penalty, has re-opened the debate over the practice of enforcing capital punishment for apostasy in Muslim countries. For Francesco Zannini, professor of Modern Islam at the Pontifical Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies (PISAI), the death penalty is not prescribed in the Qu‘ran even though people believe it is. What is clear though is that fundamentalists are fanning the flames on this issue and that Muslim governments acquiesce.
Is the death penalty for apostasy applied in all Islamic cultures?
Support for killing a convert to another religion is strong at a popular level in some countries that enforce the Sharia like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and states within Malaysia. But elsewhere in the Islamic world, there is a debate over whether it is right to kill an apostate or not.
It must be first said is that the Qu‘ran does not provide any precise guidelines in the matter. Indeed, it says: “There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path” (Sura, 2: 256). Even though other verses in the Qu‘ran can be interpreted as justification for killing since they speak of making war against the enemies of Islam, most suggest that anyone who rejects Islam after accepting it will be punished at the end of his life in the Last Judgement.
The hadith (the collected sayings of the prophet) that deal with the issue carry little weight. Some fundamentalists like [sheikh Yusuf] al-Qaradawi, who speaks on al-Jazeera, claim that killing an apostate is right so long as there is a single hadith that orders it. Others say instead that we cannot rely on the hadith to impose the death penalty.
The debate over apostasy has become more complex. Muslims are still discussing how to define it, whether renouncing Islam has to be done in words, in deeds or just in the heart.
Some intellectuals like Egyptian Nasr Abu Zaid and Bangladeshi Taslima Nazrin have been declared apostate in ways that seem to reflect a desire to get rid of people who dissent from the dominant way of thinking.
Whatever the case, the legal and theological bases of apostasy are rather weak, and the debate surrounding it is heated. On the one hand, we have people like Muhammad al-Ghazali, a modern fundamentalist who defends the death penalty for apostates. On the other, there are Egyptian human rights groups who are critical of the practice. Many Lebanese, Syrian and Egyptian Muslims also believe that no one can use the Qu‘ran to draw the inference that killing apostates is necessary.
Does the death penalty go back to the origins of Islam or has it emerged in recent decades with the rise of fundamentalism?
In the beginning apostasy got mixed up with politics, namely with what to do with non Muslims who might be spies for the enemy. This ruthless attitude got worse under Abu Bakr, the first caliph. His successor however, Omar, did not even apply the rule on Islam’s enemies. Afterwards there was an attempt to codify the practice but it was never easily accepted in Islam.
Why is support for killing apostates so widespread at a popular level?
Because there is a strong consensus among Muslims that one cannot abandon one’s faith (and this is stressed in the Qu‘ran). This led to the persecution of heretics and apostates. Al-Hallaj, one of the great Muslim mystics died a martyr’s death at the hands of his fellow Muslims. In this sense, the political use of apostasy by rulers was important in manipulating popular attitudes.
What drives Muslims to want to kill anyone guilty of apostasy in the name of their religion, relatives included?
There are two factors that come into play; one that is spiritual and the other that is linked to their sense of community. Since Islam is seen as a totality, leaving it is seen as damaging its growth. It is not a matter of faith, but one of the Ummah or community. An apostate, a Muslim who converts, is seen as someone who is undermining the social cohesion of the family itself. For example, in Malaysia, people are talking about what to do with modernised Muslims, i.e. those who “do not act like true Muslims” as defined by the tradition. Some Qu‘ranic scholars insist that they should be sentenced to death. By contrast, in Indonesia, where the principles of Pancasila recognise freedom for five religions, families can have members who are Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc.
It is also important to make a distinction between the Sharia, which is divinely ordained, and Fiqh, i.e. Islamic jurisprudence, which is based on human intellect. Hence, some Muslims ask why, since there is no divine ruling [about apostasy], man should assume the right to pass laws?
How strong are liberal voices who defend religious freedom in the Islamic world?
Tolerance is present in the constitutions of Muslim countries except for Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan. The Saudis have gone so far as to refuse to sign the Charter on Human Rights because they do not accept religious freedom.
Other Muslim countries recognise religious freedom but do not protect it, partly because they have mixed constitutions. Some sections are inspired by the Sharia; others refer to international treaties. And in all, Islam is seen as the basis and inspiration for law-making. This opens the door to manipulation.
Among the masses, fundamentalism, which must protect itself from the attacks of the West, has been growing. Fundamentalist theologians manipulate the Qu‘ran. They refer to Muhammad’s struggle against Pagans (during his stay in Makkah) and view the fight against apostasy as part of the fight against Paganism and idolatry. This is why killing a Westerner, a Christian, or even a moderate Muslim is seen as justified.
Aren’t Muslim governments a bit too shy in asserting the independence of their constitutions vis-à-vis Islam?
Of course they are. Muslim governments are afraid of the masses and of fundamentalists. Their constitutions assert that sovereignty is vested in the people, but then say that Islam is above everything. This misunderstanding leaves people secure in their traditional view of things, which fundamentalists like to heat up as part of their dream to see the entire world under Islam.
What can we do? The Pope and many governments have demanded clemency for Abdul Rahman…
The West faces a problem. There is not accountability for the funds invested in education and culture. More often than not, the money goes to governments who use it to strengthen their power bases and not to moderate voices.
None the less, whatever is done, it must avoid the use of force. Muslims by and large believe that Islam is in danger. If changes are pursued through force this fear can turn into closure.
Our appeals must be based on humanitarian grounds and connected to the fate of Muslim intellectuals to show that Islam itself defends religious freedom.
The appeal was sent in the pope’s name by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who told him that the pope’s appeal was inspired by “profound human compassion” and by the “firm belief in the dignity of human life and by respect for every person’s freedom of conscience and religion.”
President George W Bush and other Western leaders have expressed concern at the threatened death penalty for Abdur Rahman, 40. Sharia, on which Afghan law is partly based, stipulates death for apostasy. “I am certain, Mr President, that the dropping of the case against Mr Rahman would bestow great honour upon the Afghan people and would raise a chorus of admiration in the international community,” the letter said. The Afghan constitution says “no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam” but also says it will abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines freedom of religion.
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=5748
Killing apostates not in Qu‘ran but a strongly held view in the masses
by Bernardo Cervellera
Fundamentalist theologians have led people to believe that apostasy undermines the unity of the Ummah, the Muslim community. But for Prof Francesco Zannini, who teaches at the Pontifical Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies, the issue is hotly debated amongst Muslims.
Rome (AsiaNews) – The recent case of Abdul Rahman, a Christian convert from Islam threatened with the death penalty, has re-opened the debate over the practice of enforcing capital punishment for apostasy in Muslim countries. For Francesco Zannini, professor of Modern Islam at the Pontifical Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies (PISAI), the death penalty is not prescribed in the Qu‘ran even though people believe it is. What is clear though is that fundamentalists are fanning the flames on this issue and that Muslim governments acquiesce.
Is the death penalty for apostasy applied in all Islamic cultures?
Support for killing a convert to another religion is strong at a popular level in some countries that enforce the Sharia like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and states within Malaysia. But elsewhere in the Islamic world, there is a debate over whether it is right to kill an apostate or not.
It must be first said is that the Qu‘ran does not provide any precise guidelines in the matter. Indeed, it says: “There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path” (Sura, 2: 256). Even though other verses in the Qu‘ran can be interpreted as justification for killing since they speak of making war against the enemies of Islam, most suggest that anyone who rejects Islam after accepting it will be punished at the end of his life in the Last Judgement.
The hadith (the collected sayings of the prophet) that deal with the issue carry little weight. Some fundamentalists like [sheikh Yusuf] al-Qaradawi, who speaks on al-Jazeera, claim that killing an apostate is right so long as there is a single hadith that orders it. Others say instead that we cannot rely on the hadith to impose the death penalty.
The debate over apostasy has become more complex. Muslims are still discussing how to define it, whether renouncing Islam has to be done in words, in deeds or just in the heart.
Some intellectuals like Egyptian Nasr Abu Zaid and Bangladeshi Taslima Nazrin have been declared apostate in ways that seem to reflect a desire to get rid of people who dissent from the dominant way of thinking.
Whatever the case, the legal and theological bases of apostasy are rather weak, and the debate surrounding it is heated. On the one hand, we have people like Muhammad al-Ghazali, a modern fundamentalist who defends the death penalty for apostates. On the other, there are Egyptian human rights groups who are critical of the practice. Many Lebanese, Syrian and Egyptian Muslims also believe that no one can use the Qu‘ran to draw the inference that killing apostates is necessary.
Does the death penalty go back to the origins of Islam or has it emerged in recent decades with the rise of fundamentalism?
In the beginning apostasy got mixed up with politics, namely with what to do with non Muslims who might be spies for the enemy. This ruthless attitude got worse under Abu Bakr, the first caliph. His successor however, Omar, did not even apply the rule on Islam’s enemies. Afterwards there was an attempt to codify the practice but it was never easily accepted in Islam.
Why is support for killing apostates so widespread at a popular level?
Because there is a strong consensus among Muslims that one cannot abandon one’s faith (and this is stressed in the Qu‘ran). This led to the persecution of heretics and apostates. Al-Hallaj, one of the great Muslim mystics died a martyr’s death at the hands of his fellow Muslims. In this sense, the political use of apostasy by rulers was important in manipulating popular attitudes.
What drives Muslims to want to kill anyone guilty of apostasy in the name of their religion, relatives included?
There are two factors that come into play; one that is spiritual and the other that is linked to their sense of community. Since Islam is seen as a totality, leaving it is seen as damaging its growth. It is not a matter of faith, but one of the Ummah or community. An apostate, a Muslim who converts, is seen as someone who is undermining the social cohesion of the family itself. For example, in Malaysia, people are talking about what to do with modernised Muslims, i.e. those who “do not act like true Muslims” as defined by the tradition. Some Qu‘ranic scholars insist that they should be sentenced to death. By contrast, in Indonesia, where the principles of Pancasila recognise freedom for five religions, families can have members who are Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc.
It is also important to make a distinction between the Sharia, which is divinely ordained, and Fiqh, i.e. Islamic jurisprudence, which is based on human intellect. Hence, some Muslims ask why, since there is no divine ruling [about apostasy], man should assume the right to pass laws?
How strong are liberal voices who defend religious freedom in the Islamic world?
Tolerance is present in the constitutions of Muslim countries except for Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan. The Saudis have gone so far as to refuse to sign the Charter on Human Rights because they do not accept religious freedom.
Other Muslim countries recognise religious freedom but do not protect it, partly because they have mixed constitutions. Some sections are inspired by the Sharia; others refer to international treaties. And in all, Islam is seen as the basis and inspiration for law-making. This opens the door to manipulation.
Among the masses, fundamentalism, which must protect itself from the attacks of the West, has been growing. Fundamentalist theologians manipulate the Qu‘ran. They refer to Muhammad’s struggle against Pagans (during his stay in Makkah) and view the fight against apostasy as part of the fight against Paganism and idolatry. This is why killing a Westerner, a Christian, or even a moderate Muslim is seen as justified.
Aren’t Muslim governments a bit too shy in asserting the independence of their constitutions vis-à-vis Islam?
Of course they are. Muslim governments are afraid of the masses and of fundamentalists. Their constitutions assert that sovereignty is vested in the people, but then say that Islam is above everything. This misunderstanding leaves people secure in their traditional view of things, which fundamentalists like to heat up as part of their dream to see the entire world under Islam.
What can we do? The Pope and many governments have demanded clemency for Abdul Rahman…
The West faces a problem. There is not accountability for the funds invested in education and culture. More often than not, the money goes to governments who use it to strengthen their power bases and not to moderate voices.
None the less, whatever is done, it must avoid the use of force. Muslims by and large believe that Islam is in danger. If changes are pursued through force this fear can turn into closure.
Our appeals must be based on humanitarian grounds and connected to the fate of Muslim intellectuals to show that Islam itself defends religious freedom.