Coretan Mas Neo

Bantahan Terhadap Tulisan Hardi Darjoto ‘Rambut Perempuan’ (Bagian I)

2010-06-11T08:54:00.002+07:00

Ini bantahan dan tanggapan saya terhadap tulisan Saudara Hardi Darjoto di blog nya: http://hardidarjoto.blogspot.com/2008/01/rambut-perempuan.html

Katakanlah kepada wanita yang beriman: "Hendaklah mereka menahan pandangannya, dan kemaluannya, dan janganlah mereka menampakkan perhiasannya, kecuali yang (biasa) nampak dari padanya. Dan hendaklah mereka menutupkan kain kudung kedadanya, dan janganlah menampakkan perhiasannya kecuali kepada suami mereka, atau ayah mereka, atau ayah suami mereka, atau putera-putera mereka, atau putera-putera suami mereka, atau saudara-saudara laki-laki mereka, atau putera-putera saudara lelaki mereka, atau putera-putera saudara perempuan mereka, atau wanita-wanita islam, atau budak-budak yang mereka miliki, atau pelayan-pelayan laki-laki yang tidak mempunyai keinginan (terhadap wanita) atau anak-anak yang belum mengerti tentang aurat wanita. Dan janganlah mereka memukulkan kakinyua agar diketahui perhiasan yang mereka sembunyikan. Dan bertaubatlah kamu sekalian kepada Allah, hai orang-orang yang beriman supaya kamu beruntung. (QS An Nuur: 31)

“Ayat 24:31 ini menyebutkan bahwa perempuan haruslah (i) menjaga kehormatan dalam cara berpakaian”

Jawab:
Dalam terjemahan Quran surat An-Nuur: 31 Bahasa Indonesia terbitan Depag tidak ada disebutkan kata ‘kehormatan’, jadi dari mana blogger menterjemahkan kata tersebut?

“Kata 'kehormatan" itu sebenarnya tafsiran dari kata asli yang tertulis, yaitu saw‟atihima, yang artinya organ genital. Bila melihat kata aslinya, jelas bagian mana yang disebut dengan organ genital, rambut tidak termasuk kedalamnya.

Jawab:
Bahkan kata "saw’atihima" yang disebutkan oleh blogger ini jika kita baca Quran dalam bahasa Arab tidak akan kita dapatkan dalam surat An-Nuur:31. (silakan baca surat An-Nur:31 dalam bahasa Arab)
Para ulama tidak ada yang menafsirkan "kemaluan‟ dengan "kehormatan‟, sesuai dengan kaidah bahasa Arab kata "kemaluan‟ tersebut berarti "alat kelamin" dan bukan „kehormatan‟. Dalam tafsir Ibnu Katsir dijelaskan: “and protect their private parts (kemaluan)”. Sa`id bin Jubayr said: "From immoral actions.'' Abu Al-`Aliyah said: "Every Ayah of the Qur'an in which protecting the private parts (kemaluan) is mentioned means protecting them from Zina except for this Ayah which means protecting them from being seen by anybody. Jadi jelas di sini bahwa „Ulama menafsirkannya sesuai dengan makna kata asli, yaitu "kemaluan‟, yang harus dijaga dari pandangan orang lain, dan bukan "kehormatan‟ seperti yang ditulis blogger. Jika memang ada tafsiran lain seharusnya blogger mencantumkannya dengan jelas, sesuai dengan prinsip ilmu pengetahuan, segala sesuatu harus memiliki dalil/dasar.

“Pengertian perhiasan memang luas dan Al Qur'an tidak secara spesifik menunjuk kepada satu hal mengenai apa yang dimaksud dengan perhiasan. Bisa berarti perhiasan dalam arti gelang, cincin, kalung, anting, dan sebagainya. Bisa juga dandanan / riasan perempuan (termasuk asesoris tadi). Bisa juga termasuk bagian tubuh tertentu (dalam hal ini ada yang menafsirkan termasuk juga rambut).”

Jawab:
Menurut tafsir Ibnu Katsir, kata „perhiasan‟ dikembalikan kepada kata asalnya yaitu sesuatu yang dijadikan hiasan, seperti kalung, cincin, gelang, dan anting, dan tidak ditafsirkan sebagai bagian tubuh tertentu, atau rambut, dll.
“and not to show off their adornment except that which is apparent,” means, they should not show anything of their adornment to non-Mahram men except for whatever it is impossible to hide.
Jika ada tafsiran lain dari kata „perhiasan‟ silakan blogger menunjukkan sumbernya, karena sangat mudah untuk mengatakan sesuatu, tetapi sangat sulit untuk membuktikannya.

“Frase „hendaknya meraka menutupkan kain kudungnya ke dadanya‟ jelas sekali adalah perintah menutupi dada; bukan menutupi rambut, ataupun menggunakan kerudung.”

Jawab:
Telah nampak kebodohan sang blogger akibat kecerobohannya sendiri. Mungkin menurut blogger baju-baju pesta bergaya „kemben‟ merupakan pakaian yang sesuai dengan syariat Islam, karena sudah menutupi dada, atau mungkin jangan-jangan blogger beranggapan bahwa pakaian „backless‟ pun tidak menyalahi syariat Islam karena perintahnya hanya „menutupi dada.‟
Tolong anda yang masih memiliki akal sehat hendaknya berpikir ulang tentang kesehatan mental sang blogger ini.

“pada jaman Nabi dahulu, perempuan Arab sudah memakai kerudung namun pemakaiannya menjuntai ke belakang, sementara dadanya dibiarkan terbuka (Muhammad Said al-Asymawi, Kritik Atas Jilbab, 2003). Jadi, daripada kerudung itu menjuntai ke belakang, lebih baik sampirkan ke depan untuk menutupi dada.”

Tanggapan:
“menutupkan kain kudung kedadanya”, menurut Ibnu Katsir dalam tafsirnya:
means that they should wear the outer garment in such a way as to cover their chests and ribs, so that they will be different from the women of the Jahiliyyah, who did not do that but would pass in front of men with their chests completely uncovered, and with their necks, forelocks
(jambul/poni), hair and earrings uncovered. So Allah commanded the believing women to cover themselves. Allah berfirman:
Hai Nabi, katakanlah kepada isteri-isterimu, anak-anak perempuanmu dan isteri-isteri orang mukmin: "Hendaklah mereka mengulurkan jilbabnya ke seluruh tubuh mereka." Yang demikian itu supaya mereka lebih mudah untuk dikenal, karena itu mereka tidak di ganggu. Dan Allah adalah Maha Pengampun lagi Maha Penyayang. (QS Al Ahzab 59)
Dalam tafsir Ibnu Katsir dijelaskan:
“and to draw their (Khumur) veils all over their Juyub”. Khumur (veils) is the plural of Khimar, which means something that covers, and is what is used to cover the head. This is what is known among the people as a veil.
Sa`id bin Jubayr said:
“and to draw” means to pull it around and tie it securely.
“their veils all over their Juyub” means, over their necks and chests so that nothing can be seen of them.

To be continued ...

Relations between Terrorism and State-Building (Realist/Neorealist point of view)

2009-11-24T17:23:00.000+07:00

The first step in coming to grips with terrorism is defining the term. It is an important consideration, because so many phenomena in the contemporary international arena are labeled terrorist. This makes a definition particularly important as means to measure whether a particular movement or act is terrorist or not.
So, who was a terrorist? What was a terrorist? By what criteria we were going to use to identify individuals, groups and/or nation-states as terrorist?

Having an agreed definition of terrorism would help answer this and similar questions about other potentially terrorist activities, but unfortunately, such an agreement do not exist. Rather, there are virtually as many different definitions as there are people and organizations making the distinctions. There are also some commonalities that recur across definers and will allow us to adopt a definition for present purposes. Such as U.S. Department of State offers the official governmental definition, which is applied in its annual survey of international terrorism. Its definition of terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (quoted in Kruger and Laitin). In Attacking Terrorism, coauthor Audrey Kurt Cronin says terrorism is distinguished by its political nature, its nonstate base, its targeting of innocent noncombatants, and the illegality of its acts. Jessica Stern, in Terrorism in the Name of God, defines terrorism as “an act or threat of violence against noncombatants with the objective of exacting revenge, intimidating, or otherwise influencing an audience.” For me, terrorist depends to who tell first or from who’s talking. Like Palestinian-Israel case, Israel said that Palestinian is a terrorist with their Jihadist troop, suicide bombers, Intifada movement and etc. In opposite position, Palestinian said that Israel is a terrorist because they occupied Palestinian land and try to genocide Palestinian race. Who is the correct one? It’s depending to who’s talking right? Exactly, for all of the definitions contains these three common points: terrorist act (illegal, often hideous and atrocious), terrorist targets (usually innocent noncombatants), and terrorist purposes (political persuasion or influence).
Another one, we need to define state-building. State building is an increase in mobilization and extraction capacity of the central state institutions as it relates to other social actors. State building is primarily concerned with increasing the power of the central executive. This entails the ability of the state builders to eliminate or neutralize rivals thereby creating a monopoly of collective violence inside of the state’s territory. State building can be further defined with three activities state builders use to strengthen their position: penetration, mobilization, and extraction (Coaty, Patrick C., 2002).
Since 9/11 tragedy, the world view was change. There was a major trauma for the U.S. and the world at large, thrusting international religious terrorism onto center stage. Efforts to respond to the actions of Al Qaeda (the principal international terrorist group) have, in turn, caused the nature of the threat itself to change, a process of terrorism suppression and terrorist group adaptation that is likely to continue. It is harder for the normally state-centric realists to explain why the world’s only superpower announced a war against Al-Qaeda, a non state terrorist organization. How can realist theory account for the importance powerful and violent individuals in a world states? Even if realists acknowledge the importance of non state actors as a challenge to their assumptions, the theory still has important things to say about the behavior and motivations of these groups. The realist scholar Robert A. Pape, for example, has argued that suicide terrorism can be rational, realistic strategy for the leadership of national liberation movement seeking to expel democratic powers that occupy their homelands. What Bush react after, for me, was very over-reacted. Even I understand how angry he was, but what they did after is totally unforgiving by attacking another country without any clear reason with the name “war on terror” (with two target states, Afghanistan and Iraq) with the reason that so many Al-Qaeda troops in that countries. Bush pursue to maintenance American hegemony back. America is the only state in the international community that can provide both a military and a cultural response to the challenges of the war on terror. Realists have criticized this concept. When a state grows vastly more powerful than any opponent, realists expect that it will eventually use that power to expand its sphere of domination, whether for security, wealth, or other motives. Neo-Realist argue no state is unique. Neo-Realist contend the American perception of uniqueness comes from the lack of a balancing power in the international environment today.
So, what the relations between these two parties, state building and terrorist? Indeed we need to identify with three core elements of Realism – statism, survival, and self-help. Statism is the term given to the idea of the state as the legitimate representative of the collective will of the people. Yet outside the boundaries of the state, realist argue that a condition of anarchy exists which representative by terrorist attack. Because terrorist make state in unstable condition, realist correctly assume that all states wish to perpetuate their existence. On the opposite side, terrorist see that state building (example U.S) as a threat and they want to removal state building from their area/land to maintain their existence. Both of these parties are need to survive by neutralize or eliminate their rivals. According to Realism, each state actor or non state actor is responsible for ensuring their own well-being and survival, or in other word is you need to self-help yourself. Realist do not believe it is prudent for a state, especially non state, to entrust its safety and survival to another actor or international institution such as the League of Nations or the United Nations. States and of course terrorist (non state), in short, should not depend on other states or institutions to ensure their own security. That’s why state building and terrorist consider going war rather than peace. Because you need to survive and self help yourself to achieve your goal. State building need terrorist to make the anarchy concept exists. So state building can make it as justification to increasing their power (especially military force) and eliminate their rivals.