Interview with Abu Bakar Bashir

'Jihad, not elections'
By FARISH A NOOR

Ustaz Abu Bakar Bashir, founder and head of the Pesantren al-Mukmin of Ngruki, Surakarta, is perhaps the most well-known Muslim scholar in Southeast Asia today. Following the bombing in Bali in 2002, he was accused of being involved in the attack and subsequently brought to trial and sent to prison. After his release last month, he has once again appeared on the political scene of Indonesia and ASEAN as a major figure in the contemporary development of popular Islam. Despite the accusations that were leveled against him, many Indonesians we met expressed support for the man and skepticism over the trial, arguing instead that the Indonesian government was forced to act against Bashir due to pressure from Western governments including the United States and Australia. Malaysian academic Farish A. Noor recently visited the Pesantren al-Mukmin in Solo and met with Ustaz Bashir himself. The following is a transcript of the interview (done in Bahasa Indonesia) with Bashir where he talks about the current state of ASEAN, the political conflict in the Arab world, American influence in Southeast Asia and the struggle of Muslims in Indonesia.

FARISH A NOOR: We have just returned from a demonstration where you and the students of Ngruki were present along with members of the Majlis Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI), Front Pembela Islam (FPI), Front Pemuda Islam Solo (FPIS), Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI), Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) and others. When you spoke to the crowd you focused mainly on the current conflict in Lebanon and the aggression of the Israelis. You also criticised the weakness of the Muslim leaders of the world. Why has it come to this? Recently there was the OIC meeting in Kuala Lumpur and the statement they came up with was lame and non-conclusive; why are Muslim governments so scared to speak up and call for united action?

ABU BAKAR BASHIR: This is to be expected from them (Muslim leaders). What else can they do? What else can they say? There is not a single Muslim leader today who has the courage and commitment to defend Islam and Muslims, they are all in awe of the United States and other Western powers, and are indebted to them. This is what we call ‘Wahn’; "penyakit cinta dunia, takut mati". Our Prophet warned that this would be the case in the future, that the Muslim ummat would be great in numbers, but weak in spirit - until they are trampled upon again and again.

The Arab leaders and other Muslim leaders in Asia all suffer from this disease called ‘wahn’, this weakness brought about by wealth and privilege, and thus they have become soft. That is why they cannot stand up to the kafirs and they cannot be firm in their statements and policies. Their love for the world and all things wordly (duniawi) means that they only think of themselves. Arab leaders worry more about making money from the profits they get from oil and gas that they turn the other way when Lebanon is being destroyed right next to them. Their neighbours are being murdered, but they only make calculations for their own benefit.

This is why I have always said that it would be better if Muslims were poor. Oil wealth has been a curse on us, made us weak and docile. Look at the Afghans, during the time of the Soviet invasion. They were among the poorest Muslims in the world, yet they were sustained by their faith in God, and God alone.

Muslims must believe that all power, success and victory comes from God alone.("Hanya Allah Maha Esa yang menentukannya".)

If God wills it, they will win - no matter what the odds may be. The Prophet defeated the enemies of Islam even when he and his followers were small in number. Why? Because they had the ultimate power, God, on their side. This is the real superpower. The Afghans did not have sophisticated weapons like the Soviets did, but with their faith they defeated a superpower. That is when the kafirs feared us Muslims, when we had discipline and faith, when we were strong in our hearts and not weak in our stomachs.

This jihad spirit (semangat berjihad) is not in the OIC now. Show me an OIC leader who can talk about jihad. Not even the leaders of Malaysia or Indonesia have this, so how can we do anything? Your leader Badawi is weak (Badawi itu luwes, lemah orangnya.) The only Muslim leader who has some spirit left is your former leader Mahathir Mohamad, who called for a boycott of US and other Western currencies. He was right, when he said that Muslim countries should abandon the US Dollar and trade with their own currencies instead. Why should we use the Dollar even when we trade among ourselves? Even though Mahathir did not openly call for jihad, at least he said something. This was the least we could have done. ("Sekurang-kurangnya kita bisa lakukan begitu, memboikotkan matawang Amerika itu".)

But the leaders of the OIC could not even accept Mahathir's proposal, yet they talk about respect and honour. What honour have we got left, when nobody is listening to us?

Some would argue that this weakness stems from the fear of being seen as being 'too radical'. I have problems with this concept, for I believe that being a radical is not necessarily a bad thing. After all Nelson Mandela, Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyata, Ghandhi, Nehru, were all radicals in their time; and they did not compromise in their opposition to colonialism, imperialism, racism and apartheid. So why cant we be radicals now?

You are right, but the weakness does not come from the millions of Muslims in the world. They do not mind being radical, they have no fear to speak out and to protest and to jihad. But the weakness comes from these Westernised co-opted Muslim leaders who just want to look good in the eyes of the West and Western media. They are scared that the BBC or CNN may call them radicals, so they remain soft instead.

We should be proud that our Prophet came into the world with the message of Islam to change it for the better, and not for the worse, or to keep things as they are. What use is revelation or religion if it doesnt change anything?

Today the Western powers and media want to domesticate us like sheep, to keep us tame and domesticated. But why are animals domesticated? So that they can be slaughtered in the end! (Binatang itu dijinak-jinaki supaya disembelihkan nanti!)

That is why they use the label 'radical' in the way they do, to keep us scared and to keep us under control. This is true for our leaders, who have all been domesticated and trained to speak the way their Western bosses want them to.

So where do we get our role models then?

The only model to follow is pure Islam ("Islam yang murni"). Because Islam in its original form was tough and hard ("tegas dan keras"), not weak and pliable. Islam is fixed, stable, ordered and disciplined, and so are Muslims.

If we return to the real practice of true Islam we would be much stronger and that is when the kafirs will fear us. That is why we need to uphold the Shariah and return to real Islam. But the West is trying to weaken Islam from outside and inside. They attack our people and invade our countries from outside, and they weaken us from within with ideas like secularism, liberalism and democracy. This is all designed to contaminate our pure Islam.

Why do we Muslims have to learn from them? Islam is perfect, there is nothing to be added or changed. We have shown that Islam can rule the world perfectly for fourteen centuries, and during this time of Muslim power we did not borrow ideas like democracy from others, so why do we need to learn democracy from them now? As long as Muslims were confident (in the past) they could not be defeated, but now we are just puppets ("boneka semuanya").

This is why we are calling for the upholding of the Shariah here in Indonesia. We demand an Islamic state, and not some form of Islamisation of society. We want the state to be Islamic, with Islamic leaders who have the courage and will to implement the Shariah in total. There is no other way. ("Nggak ada jalanan yang lain".)

Can you elaborate a little more on that? What do you mean by ‘enforcing Shariah with determination?’

Islam’s laws are fixed and that is why Islam is stable. Laws are to be enforced justly (“dengan adil”) but firmly, with an iron hand (“dengan tangan besi”). This is the case anywhere, even in a family.

Look at my own case: I am the father in my family. It is my duty to enforce the Shariah in my family and I do so with an iron hand. If my children do not behave according to Islam, if they do not pray for instance, I will punish them. Likewise the leader of any state has to do the same, he has to enforce Shariah firmly, for he will be held in account later in the afterlife if he fails. If his society breaks Islamic law, who is responsible? Is it not the leader, who has failed to enforce the laws of God? Here in Indonesia we have such laws but they are never enforced, that makes a mockery of Islam and Shariah.

So we want an Islamic state where Islamic law is not just in the books but enforced, and enforced with determination. There is no space and no room for democratic consultation. The Shariah is set and fixed, so why do we need to discuss it anymore? Just implement it! ("Shariat itu bukankah sudah lengkap dan komplit? Ngapa mahu berdiskusi lagi? Implimentasikan saja!")

Right now we are drafting our own constitutional ammendents for Indonesia, the framework for an Indonesian Islamic state where Islamic laws are enforced. Indonesians must understand that there is no Islamic state without the enforcement of Islamic laws. Otherwise it is just talk and nothing else.

What about the Muslim leadership here in Southeast Asia? Earlier you criticised the leaders of Indonesia and Malaysia. How have they failed in your eyes?

Indonesia is in a mess as you can see. We are a very rich country, with plenty of resources and good people who want to live decent lives, but look at how corruption has destroyed our country. We should be a rich country but successive Indonesian leaders have left us weak and dependent on external aid. We are busy paying off loans when we should be giving loans instead! And our leaders during the Orde Baru (of Suharto) were secular, pro-American and entirely corrupted by global capitalist forces.

As for Malaysia, you may be economically better off but your leaders are weak. Badawi may come from a family of ulama but his faith is weak and so is his spirit. ("Imannya nggak kuat, walaupun dari keluarga ulama tapi jiwanya kerdil.") How can Malaysia sign a free trade agreement with America and Japan? Are these not kafir countries? And America today is an enemy of Muslim states and the supporter of Israel. In Islam that makes America a kafir harbi (enemy) state, and we Muslims are obliged to cut off all ties, diplomatic and economic with such an enemy state.

Anwar (Ibrahim) is also someone who does not understand Islam well. ("Dia kurang mengerti agama"). How can he talk about dialogue with America and the West? What dialogue? With murderers of Muslims? Anwar is mistaken ("salah pendapat") about his views on Westerners and Jews. The Jews are cunning and cannot be trusted, as it states in the Qur'an. At the moment the United States is just being the donkey for Israel, who is riding the USA.

How can we dialogue for peace in the Arab world as long as Israel exists? Israel cannot dream of having peaceful borders because Israel has no right to exist, no right to be there. That is the land of Palestine, for the Palestinians. How can any Muslim leader say that Israel has the right to safe borders? It should not be there in the first place!

Is there no way to engage in dialogue then?

In Islam there is only one way, the Islamic way. Dialogue with the kafirs is useless unless we Muslims are already living in Islamic states and not secular democracies. When you want dialogue with Muslims, Muslims need to be in power in their own countries first, on their terms.

If the (Muslim) government does not impose Shariah, it has to be replaced. As long as the government does not go against Islam, we can still tolerate it. But once it goes against Shariah, we must oppose it.

When our governments engage with enemy kafir states, is that not going against Islamic principles? When you dialogue with countries that are anti-Islam and kill Muslims, how can you call yourself an Islamic state?

It is the duty ("harus dan wajib") for Muslims to oppose their governments when their leaders dialogue with our enemies. It says so in the Quran (Surah 60:9), that those who oppose Islam are our enemies and we must fight against them.

So before we dialogue with kafirs, we need to go on jihad against our own hypocrite governments first that are apostates (murtad) and against Islamic principles.

So what kind of Muslim leadership are you talking about? What kind of Muslim leader do you want to see?

All the answers are in Islam. As the scholar Ibn Taymiyyah has argued in his work Kitab Fatawa, Islam is in two parts: the Quran and the Sword. ("Ibnu Taimiyyah sudah bilangkan Islam itu asasnya dua: Quran dan Pedang").

The Quran has all the guidelines, rules, norms, laws and punishments we need. The enforcement of the Shariah is the sword (pedang) we are talking about. Without enforcement of the Shariah the Quran is just words in a book. It is a text with no practical meaning. That is why the message has to be implemented and realised with determination.

Look at the sunnah (practice) of the Prophet. When he gave his speeches and surmons he had a spear (tombak) in his hand. Why? This was the symbol of power. His followers knew he was serious, and not simply giving empty talk. He meant what he said and he did what he said he would do.

Sadly over the centuries Islam grew weak and we forgot that the Prophet carried a spear when he spoke. The spear was replaced with a staff (tongkat) instead, as if Muslims were weak and needed a walking-stick to stand up! We need to go back to this original, strong, robust Islam. Like the Prophet we need to carry the spear (tombak) again. If the Prophet carried a spear, then for us today we can carry an M-16!

Or even a Kalashnikov?

"Kalau nggak adanya M-16, maka Kalashnikov pun bisa dipakei..." Muslim leaders today have fallen short of the Prophet's example. They mouth empty pious phrases about how they yearn for an Islamic state, but they dont have the guts or will to do it.

There is not a single Islamic state in the world, not even in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are hypocrites and friends of the United States; their leaders are all corrupt and worldly.The closest we ever got to an Islamic state was the Taliban government in Afghanistan, but the Americans destroyed that, with their Western allies.

But the Saudis claim that they are the defenders of the holy sites of Islam and Muslims. What is more they are the promoters of Wahabism. How do you reconcile that?

Wahabism is just a school of thought. The Saudi regime used the Wahabis for their own political ends, to justify their rule and to control their people. Occasionally they may implement one or two Wahabi ideas, but then again only for cosmetic reasons. They impose laws on dress and public behavior, but what about the moral obligation to jihad against the enemies of Islam? How can you promote Wahabism when you remain a close ally of the United States, the supporter of Israel?

The Wahabis in turn are just conservatives with no agenda for social transformation. Look at what they did to Islamist movements like the Ikwan'ul Muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood) of Egypt: They condemned the Ikwan as revolutionaries and radicals, just like the Western media!

This tendency of Muslim groups to condemn each other has always been a problem since the beginning of the Muslim community. Why is this? How come Muslims cannot stop attacking each other?

They have left the path of true Islam, that is why they are divided into so many sects and streams of thought. But the hadith tells us of how a follower of the Prophet once asked him: "What will be the future of the ummat?". The Prophet predicted: "In the future you will be great in numbers, but you will be small and weak, like froth, bubbles, floating". The follower was shocked when he heard this, but the Prophet insisted that that would be so, because the Muslims will be divided and leaderless.

Muslims need to realise what it means to be an Ummat. The Ummat is one family. ("Ummat itu satu keluarga sebenarnya"), and every Muslim is your brother. It doesnt matter what the colour, race, or country the other Muslim is from, he is still your brother, you must support him and help him when he needs your help.

But the opposite is also true- Those who are kafirs are not your family (keluarga). Even if your own parents are not Muslims, they are not your family (keluarga). They are kafirs, outside Islam. You need not think of them as members of the Ummat.

When we forget our ummat, then we become weak and divided. All our divisions come from the West, from Western ideas like nationalism and from their ideologies like democracy and secularism.

If it is unity that you wish to see, then surely someone has to lead this community. Who, then, has the right to speak about Islam and on behalf of Muslims?

Those who speak for Islam and Muslims can only be the ones whose ideas come solely from the Quran and Hadith. Not the liberals, who try to use reason and rationality to interpret the Quran. This has become fashionable now, but it is against Islam and is not allowed.

How can the Quran be interpreted rationally? These intellectuals and liberals want to interpet the Quran according to circumstances, whereas it is the circumstances that have to be adapted to the Quran. ("Quran bukan diinterpretasikan mengikut keadaan, walhal keadaannya yang mesti diadaptasikan kepada Quran".)

It is clear that the Quran is not to be discussed by those who do not follow the rules that are set. There is no democracy in Islam, so do not try to interpret the Quran and turn Islam into a democracy to suit your needs. God's law comes first ("Hukum Tuhan yang dahulu".) It is not up to the will of the people to decide what is right and how to live. Rather the will of the people have to be bent to suit the will of God. It is not democracy that we want, but Allah-cracy! ("Bukan demokrasi yang kita mahukan, tapi hanya Allah-krasi yang kita mahu lihat!")

The principles of Islam cannot be altered and and there is no democracy in Islam or nonsense like 'democratic Islam'. ("Islam demokratis itu semua non-sense sahaja!")

Democracy is shirik (unbelief) and haram. Here we do not compromise. Those who claim to be Muslims and do not support Shariah one hundred per cent are all munafik and kafirs, they are out of Islam. No need to discuss with these people, they are not part of the ummat anymore. ("Murtadnya semua".) There is no need to listen to public opinion: kafirs, apostates, liberals, atheists - they are all non-believers.

But how can this attitude this lead to social and political change? Here you and your followers in groups like the Majlis Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI), Front Pemuda Islam Solo (FPIS), etc are calling for an Islamic state, with a legal constitution based on the Shariah. But how will you achieve this in the context of Indonesia today which remains a constitutional democracy?

Islam's victory can only come through dawah and jihad, not elections. Thats why Islamic parties are on the wrong path, even the better ones like the Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) here (in Indonesia) and your PAS (in Malaysia). As long as democracy is their chosen path, the end result is haram. Nothing good can come from that which is haram, is that not the case? So if democracy is haram, then what kind of Islamic state can come from that? Certainly not a pure Islamic state. Elections are quite useless.

The struggle for Islam can only come through crisis and confrontation. Islam is here to change the world, not to be changed by the world. So there is bound to be resistance, that is why the West fears us.

If we accept Western norms like democracy then we can never reach the Allah-cracy I mentioned earlier. Democracy must be replaced by Allah-cracy and this cannot come from elections.

Those who oppose us must be educated, that is why dawah is important, to show them that Islam is the only way. But if they still resist, and are wilfully stubborn, or if they create obstacles for us, then they must be opposed. In particular all the Muslims who oppose us are apostates (murtad) and they in particular need to be dealt with firmly. We need not care for them, or feel sorry for them. They were the ones who chose to reject Shariah, to reject Islam, and so they chose to become apostates.

And you are convinced that this jihad for Shariah will solve all our problems? Will it solve the economic and political problems of Muslim countries like Indonesia for instance?

It is the first step and the right step. Economic problems, political problems, all other problems - these can only be solved when we have a firm and committed leadership that is committed to upholding and enforcing the Shariah without fear.

Look at our region now: Muslims are being killed in Patani (Southern Thailand) and Mindanao (Southern Philippines). But what do the weak leaders of Malaysia and Indonesia do? Have they actually done anything, apart from reading speeches and singing documents of peace? Muslims are dying, not in Lebanon but right here, right in front of us. These are our brothers, our neighbours. But the governments (of Malaysia and Indonesia) cannot do a single thing. This is what I mean by the disease of corruption and wealth earlier. They are weak, cowardly leaders.

That is why we need to go back to original, pure Islam, and to follow our Prophet's example. The kafirs never tried to fool around with our Prophet, they knew he was serious and determined. Yet he was fair and just, and even when he had defeated the kafirs in battles and in Medinah and Mecca, he forgave them. Forgiveness does not mean weakness, but strength. But you need to be strong first, like our Prophet was. He was strong but not arrogant. Muslim leaders today need to be strong like that, and take a firm stand on issues.

And this sums up your vision of Jihad today? Is this the sum of your own approach to Islam and the problems affecting Muslims?

This is the Islamic view of things. We must never compromise, relent, give up, submit to our kafir enemies. We must always keep to the Islamic path, jihad in the name of Shariah, and never be apologetic.

So I agree that we must never be apologetic about being called 'radicals' today. Even during the time of the Prophet his enemies called him a madman! So being called a 'radical' is not as bad! (laughs) ("Rasul kita dituduh gila orangnya, jadi dipanggil 'radikal' itu ringan sahaja bukan?") We should not apologise for this, or compromise in our jihad. Today they call us ‘radicals’, tomorrow they will call us something else. These obstacles will always be there, because the kafirs fear us when we get stronger…

Remember that jihad is what brought Islam to power and built our community. There can be no Islam without jihad. Why, even if you want to build a Capitalist or Communist state you need to have a jihad; a jihad for capitalism or a jihad for communism. So why can’t Muslims engage in a jihad for Islam and Shariah?

The Story Behind the Story

Menungu Reformasi Era Abdullah


Sejak beberapa tahun lalu, melalui kempen politik dan ketenteraan George W Bush, Amerika Syarikat melaksanakan apa yang disifatkan sebagai penyebaran demokrasi di Timur Tengah. Beberapa negara dijadikan sasaran; Iraq, Syria, Lubnan dan Iran, yang melalui tekanan baru apabila pembangunan nuklear negara itu turut dijadikan isu utama.

Bagaimanapun, Washington secara sengaja mengabaikan negara yang paling memerlukan demokrasi di rantau itu; Arab Saudi. Negara ini, yang dikunjungi jutaan Muslim seluruh dunia setiap tahun untuk mengerjakan haji, dibelenggu krisis demokrasi yang parah - seperti juga negara Arab kaya minyak di sekitarnya, walaupun pada tahap berbeza - dan seolah-olah terlindung daripada perhatian dunia.

Kini, berikutan pertabalan Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz sebagai raja baru negara itu menggantikan Raja Fahd bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, persoalan reformasi dan demokrasi di negara sentral umat Muslim dunia itu mula menjadi perhatian. Abdullah selama ini dikenali sebagai pemimpin yang mendepani reformasi negara itu, walaupun pada had tertentu. Tidak lama dulu, satu pilihan raya majlis kerajaan tempatan berjaya diadakan, menjadi simbol terbaru reformasi Abdullah dan mendapat liputan meluas media antarabangsa.

Selepas rasmi menjadi pemerintah Arab Saudi, Abdullah kini diharapkan membawa perubahan di negara konservatif itu. Soalnya kini, benarkah Abdullah bersedia dan mampu melaksanakan janji-janjinya? Bolehkah norma yang telah kukuh di negara itu diubah oleh seorang pemimpin, dan bersediakah negara penjaga dua masjid suci itu berdepan risiko menjejaskan hubungan baik dengan pelindungnya, Amerika?

Pada Januari 2003, sekumpulan 104 rakyat prihatin - termasuk intelektual, wanita, pekerja dan pelbagai kelompok agama -menandatangani satu petisyen menuntut reformasi perlembagaan, ditujukan kepada Abdullah yang ketika itu putera mahkota. Petisyen yang mendapat perhatian itu menuntut perkara yang telah lama diidamkan ramai rakyat Arab Saudi, antaranya jaminan hak sivil dan hak wanita dan pilihan raya untuk jawatan majlis syura, penasihat kerajaan Arab Saudi. Beberapa petisyen lain turut diserahkan kepada Raja Fahd, menuntut perkara yang sama. Awal 2004, sebuah petisyen menuntut reformasi perlembagaan sekali lagi diserahkan kepada kerajaan. Tidak lama kemudian, ramai yang menandatangani petisyen itu ditahan pihak berkuasa.

Tuntutan seperti ini bagaimanapun mudah untuk ditolak kerana dikaitkan dengan tuntutan reformasi yang sama dari Washington. Kumpulan yang mendesak reformasi secara simplistik dituduh menjadi agen asing, sedangkan tuntutan perubahan datang dari pelbagai kumpulan, termasuk kelompok liberal dan konservatif yang bertentangan. Arab Saudi berdepan pelbagai tuduhan pencabulan hak asasi manusia dan tekanan luar mendesak masyarakat yang lebih terbuka semakin jelas didengari di seluruh negara, perkembangan yang kadang-kala dikaitkan dengan keterbukaan Abdullah yang telah menjadi pemimpin de facto sejak 1995 apabila Raja Fahd diserang strok.

Abdullah bagaimanapun bukan satu–satunya tokoh dikaitkan dengan tuntutan reformasi. Satu kelompok yan digelar "putera–putera reformasi" terdiri daripada antaranya Putera Talal bin Abdul Aziz dan anaknya Walid. Kumpulan anak–anak Raja Faisal juga dilihat sebagai bersih dan mampu membawa agenda perubahan.

Tuntutan reformasi bagaimanapun tidak dapat dibahagikan hanya kepada dua kumpulan; penyokong dan kumpulan yang menyokong status quo. Pertembungan di kalangan ahli keluarga diraja - dianggarkan seramai sekitar 3,000 orang dengan persaingan lima kumpulan paling berpengaruh - merumitkan keadaan, dengan setiap kumpulan memiliki tuntutan reformasi masing-masing dan memiliki ramai penyokong dan pengikut. Semua kelompok rakyat, termasuk golongan ortodoks, Muslim Sunni dan Syiah menuntut pelbagai bentuk reformasi.

Dunia yang lebih terbuka, sebahagiannya disebabkan internet, telah membuka mata rakyat Arab Saudi kepada dunia luar dan membantu penyebaran versi lain kisah dinasti Saud dan realiti politik negara itu. Perbincangan tentang politik negara, yang pasti akan melibatkan diskusi kritikal terhadap pemerintah monarki negara itu semakin mudah untuk diadakan, walaupun sekatan masih wujud. Setakat ini, kritikan seperti ini masih lagi sebahagian besarnya berbentuk petisyen kepada pemerintah.

Bagaimanapun, beberapa demonstrasi telah berjaya diadakan di bandar-bandar besar seperti Jeddah dan Buraydah. Pihak berkuasa bertindak segera menahan mereka yang terbabit, seperti yang biasa dilakukan terhadap penentang kerajaan.

Masalah seperti pengangguran terus menjadi salah satu isu utama melibatkan golongan muda, satu segmen yang berkepentingan besar dalam politik negara kaya minyak itu. Generasi muda Arab Saudi semakin berupaya melihat kekurangan pemerintahan negara mereka dan mahu melihat reformasi terlaksana. Antara yang menjadi tuntutan rakyat negara itu ialah pengagihan yang lebih adil hasil minyak kepada rakyat. Pengurusan hasil minyak Arab Saudi dijejaskan oleh salah urus, korupsi dan kronisme keluarga monarki.

Tuntutan yang berleluasa itu jelas tidak dapat disembunyikan lagi. Pada Disember 2003, Mohammed Ibrahim al-Helwa, seorang ahli majlis syura menulis dalam akhbar milik kerajaan, Al-Sharq al-Awsat bahawa negara-negara Arab telah mengabaikan modenisasi politik sehingga menyukarkan kewujudan masyarakat sivil. Tulisnya, tuntutan ke arah masyarakat sivil tidak boleh diabaikan lagi.

Walaupun dari luar dilihat sebagai negara Islam unggul, dari satu sudut Arab Saudi ialah sebuah negara sekular. Hasil daripada pakatan keluarga Saud dengan Muhammad Abdul Wahhab – pemimpin gerakan Muwahidun, tetapi lebih dikenali sebagai Wahabi – hal politik diserahkan sepenuhnya kepada kepada raja sehingga menyebabkan ulama tunduk kepada kehendak kerajaan. Di peringkat yang lebih tinggi, jauh daripada apa yang dilihat di Mekah, jelas sekali agama dan politik terpisah.

Ulama rasmi kerajaan bergantung kepada kerajaan dan menyokong tindakan pemerintah, termasuk membenarkan Amerika menubuhkan pangkalan tentera ketika perang Teluk awal 1990-an dan mengharamkan demonstrasi menentang kerajaan. Pemerintah Arab Saudi menggunakan hujah agama untuk memberikan justifikasi segala tindakan politiknya. Tindakan menerima penempatan tentera Amerika itu menjadi satu peristiwa yang menyatukan penentang kerajaan dari pelbagai kumpulan. Pemerintah Arab Saudi tergugat apabila dikritik gagal menjadi pelindung agama, hujah yang sentiasa digunakannya untuk mengukuhkan keabsahan pemerintahan.

Ulama yang bergantung kepada kerajaan menjelaskan tindakan kerajaan itu, dan memberi alasan membenarkan kerjasama dengan Amerika. Kelompok rakyat yang kritikal terhadap kerajaan menolak justifikasi itu. Di masjid-masjid, terutama ketika khutbah Jumaat, pelbagai pandangan alternatif dikemukakan, dan tentangan terhadap pandangan ulama kerajaan itu ditentang dengan jelas. Pengaruh kelompok ulama bebas ini juga semakin meluas dan diterima lebih ramai rakyat berbanding pandangan ulama kerajaan.

Berikutan tentangan terhadap pandangan agama rasmi, kerajaan bertindak keras menahan dan memenjarakan ulama terbabit, yang aktif mengemukakan pandangan balas terhadap justifikasi kerajaan.

Kelompok yang lebih radikal, yang personifikasinya muncul dalam bentuk Osama bin Laden, mengajak penentangan yang lebih radikal terhadap monarki Arab Saudi, termasuk jihad menentang kerajaan yang bersahabat dengan Amerika. Bagi kelompok ini, kerajaan Arab Saudi telah mengkhianati agama apabila bekerjasama dengan Amerika yang hanya menjaga kepentingannya berkaitan minyak.

Tindakan kerajaan Arab Saudi yang menghabiskan berbilion dolar setiap tahun membeli senjata dari Amerika mengukuhkan pandangan kelompok tersebut. Kerajaan dikecam kerana membazirkan wang hasil minyak berbilion dolar untuk peralatan ketenteraan dan bukan untuk kepentingan umat.

Agama jelas menyukarkan pemerintah Arab Saudi. Di satu pihak, Osama dan kumpulan salafi menentang tindakan kerajaan mempergunakan agama, di satu pihak lagi, hukuman hudud - sesuatu yang dilihat sebagai mengukuhkan imej pemerintahan Islam Arab Saudi - yang dilaksanakan turut dikecam, bukan sahaja di dalam negeri tetapi juga oleh pihak luar seperti Amerika dan kumpulan hak asasi manusia antarabangsa.

Sejurus peristiwa 11 September, 2001, hubungan Washington dan Riyadh melalui satu ujian penting. Pada Julai 2001, Laurent Murawiec, penganalisis dari Rand Corporation, sebuah kumpulan pemikir berhaluan kanan mengemukakan satu analisis kepada penasihat tentera Amerika. Analisis itu menyebut Arab Saudi sebagai penyokong dan penyebar fahaman yang mendasari serangan 11 September ke atas New York dan Washington.

Menurut laporan itu, Arab Saudi "aktif di setiap peringkat rantaian keganasan", daripada pembiaya dan perancang sehingga pelaksana. Laporan itu disambut dengan hebat di media Amerika. Perbincangan kritikal terhadap Arab Saudi berlaku di semua media.

Laporan mengenai rekod hak asasi manusia pemerintah Arab Saudi juga menerima reaksi terburu-buru. Pihak neokonservatif, Kristian fundamentalis dan feminis juga mendesak Washington menyerang negara Arab itu, dengan alasan untuk membebaskan rakyatnya.

Washington bagaimanapun segera menolak pandangan kritikal terhadap pemerintah Arab Saudi, memperlihatkan kepentingan besarnya di negara pengeluar minyak terbesar dunia dan sekutu utamanya di Timur Tengah itu.

Pendirian teguh Amerika ini bagaimanapun dikongsi oleh pemerintah Arab Saudi, yang berdiri teguh di belakang kuasa besar itu dalam kempen ketenteraan "menentang terorisme." Amerika menutup mata terhadap pencabulan hak asasi manusia yang dilakukan pihak berkuasa Arab Saudi dalam usaha memerangi kelompok yang didakwa terlibat atau mempunyai kaitan dengan beberapa pengeboman di lokasi yang dikaitkan dengan hubungan baik Riyadh dengan Washington pada 2003.

Menurut wartawan Subhi Hadidi dalam tulisannya di akhbar Al-Quds al-Arabi pada November, 2003, dalam operasi pihak keselamatan Arab Saudi itu, selama enam bulan, lebih 600 orang ditahan manakala puluhan lagi dibunuh. Jelas Subhi, kesemua ini berlangsung dengan pengetahuan Amerika, yang terus memuji apa yang disifatkan sebagai langkah keselamatan itu.

Menurutnya lagi, pencabulan hak asasi manusia itu tidak berakhir di situ. Pihak Biro Siasatan Persekutuan Amerika juga diberikan kebenaran tanpa had untuk pergi ke mana-mana tempat di negara itu dan menyoal siasat sesiapa sahaja.

Banyak pihak melihat serangan tersebut, yang semakin kerap berlaku sebagai tindak balas kepada peningkatan kerjasama Riyadh dengan Washington. Dua serangan bom yang berlaku juga menerangkan sesuatu mengenai tentangan terhadap Amerika dan pemerintahan autoritarian Arab Saudi.

Pada November 1995, satu serangan telah ditujukan kepada tentera Pengawal Kebangsaan Arab Saudi dan kakitangan Vinnell Corporation, sebuah firma tentera upahan yang dibayar untuk melatih Pengawal Kebangsaan, tentera pelindung Dinasti Saud yang berada di bawah pimpinan Abdullah. Dalam satu serangan pada Mei 2003, sembilan pekerja Vinnell terbunuh. Tahun 2003 bagaimanapun turut menyaksikan pengunduran tentera Amerika dari Arab Saudi, selepas ia menolak untuk membantu serangan ke atas Iraq.

Perlindungan daripada Amerika melibatkan Vinnell hanyalah satu bahagian kecil. Arab Saudi melihat Amerika syarikat sebagai pelindung negara itu, yang paling jelas dilihat selepas Iraq menakluk Kuwait pada 1990. Minyak dijadikan bayaran untuk perlindungan yang diberikan.

Antara kebimbangan terbesar Arab Saudi ialah revolusi di Iran pada 1979. Perlindungan Amerika diharapkan untuk menghalang pengaruh revolusi itu - yang telah berjaya menjatuhkan pemerintah zalim - daripada sampai ke Arab Saudi. Sebelum itu, Arab Saudi juga melihat beberapa negara berpengaruh di Timur Tengah sebagai ancaman, iaitu Iraq dan Jordan pada 1940-an dan Mesir di bawah pemerintahan Jamal Nasir pada 1950-an. Perlindungan Amerika membolehkan Arab Saudi kekal dilihat sebagai negara paling berpengaruh di Timur Tengah. Tindakan Amerika terhadap Iraq dan Iran juga secara tidak langsung mengekalkan kedudukan selesa Arab Saudi di Timur Tengah, terutama sebagai pengeluar minyak.

Sekiranya demokrasi terus dihalang, cengkaman Keluarga Saud pasti akan mengundang pelbagai bentuk tentangan – yang jelas semakin keras dan radikal – daripada pelbagai segmen rakyat Arab Saudi yang dahagakan perubahan.

Apa pun yang dijanjikan Abdullah sebelum menduduki takhta, penilaian sebenar hanya akan dapat dibuat apabila usaha yang konkrit dilaksanakan. Bagaimanapun, berdasarkan beberapa tindakan kerajaan, seperti tindakan keras terhadap demonstrasi menuntut perubahan dan mempergunakan institusi mufti untuk mengharamkan demonstrasi, sokongan terhadap agenda Amerika dan kekangan terhadap hak asasi manusia, sukar untuk dijangkakan perubahan akan berlaku, atau akan cuba dilaksanakan. - 15 Ogos, 2005

Hidup lama

Fidel Castro got a gift from a friend, a little Galapagos tortoise. He refused the gift upon learning that the animal can live more than a hundred years. “Now, that's the problem with having pets,” said Castro. “You get attached to them and then they die on you.”

Arsip filem: Empire Records (1995)

"My life has reached its pinnacle. Joe is letting me close the store tonight." - Lucas

"I went to rock and roll heaven, and I wasn't on the guest list." - Debra

Films with great soundtracks seldom suck. Some, like Billy Elliot and this movie, Empire Records, are some that I can still watch and enjoy.

It is one of the best Generation X movie. Renee Zellweger, Rory Cochrane and Liv Tyler are some of the cast. They were not really big names then.

It is really a fun movie, but not without things like corporate take over, anti-bubblegum pop views, peer pressure, relationship, and stuff brought to the fore. The film came out around the heights of the so-called alternative music.

Really, there's not much you can say about it except that it's fun to watch. Back then it was like a utopia. You can hang around the place with your slacker friends all day and your boss is cool (he plays AC/DC to relieve stress).

But it is the anti-corporate take over thing that's the biggest point in Empire Record. After all, it was because of that Lucas (Cochrane) got himself into trouble. Lucas also has the most interesting lines in the movie.

It is a really interesting movie to watch, especially if you're a teenager or still don't know how to act your age when you're already 30.

Arsip musik: Inxs, Kick (1987)

In 1987, Inxs appeared out of nowhere with a kics ass album, Kick. That time was for me one of the best time for pop culture, for music and movies. It was, after all, still the 80's.

What was reallly great about for Inxs, a name that I didn't know how to pronounce at that time, was the 1988 MTV Video Music Awards.

It was the first MTV VMA I watched. It is still my favorite award show, closely followed by MTV Movie Award. It was hosted by Arsenio Hall, a great host.

He also had his own talk show for a while, where Bill Clinton appeared playing the saxophone, making him so popular and eventually winning the presidential election. Hall also appeared in a Paula Abdul video that won some Moonmen for her.

The music video Need You Tonight won the group five Moonmen, including best video of the year, breakthrough video and viewer's choice.

Kick is the quintessential Inxs album, and maybe even a quintessential MTV album. It remains to be seen how Inxs will do with the new singer. But from what I've seen so far, it looks quite promising.

On stereotypes

From The New York Times, August 1, 2006:

An Image Popular in Films Raises Some Eyebrows in Ads
By JEREMY W. PETERS

At 200 pounds plus — most of that pure attitude — she is hard to miss.

Her onscreen presence takes on many variations, but she is easily recognizable by a few defining traits. Other than her size, she is almost always black. She typically finds herself in an exchange that is either confrontational or embarrassing. And her best line is often little more than a sassy “Mmmm hmmm.”

This caricature, playing on stereotypes of heavy black women as boisterous and sometimes aggressive, has been showing up for some time in stand-up comedy routines and in movies like “Big Momma’s House’’ and “Diary of a Mad Black Woman.’’ Often, the pieces are produced by directors and writers who are black themselves.

With black creators giving more acceptability to the image, it is now starting to appear more often in television commercials as well. Most recently some variation of this character has appeared in commercials for Dairy Queen, Universal Studios and Captain Morgan rum.

But despite the popularity of such characters among blacks, the use of the image of big black women as the target of so many jokes is troublesome to some marketers and media scholars.

“It is perpetuating a stereotype that black females are strong, aggressive, controlling people,’’ said Tommy E. Whittler, a marketing professor at DePaul University. “I don’t think you want to do that.’’

To be sure, sassy overweight black women appear to represent only a small fraction of the African-American actresses who appear in commercials. Marketers have made strides in recent years toward making advertisements with a more diverse cast of characters.

Blacks regularly appear in commercials selling products as diverse as toothpaste, credit cards and erectile dysfunction medication. Indeed, according to several academic studies, over the last 15 years the number of blacks appearing in commercials has been roughly proportional to their share of the American population, about 14 percent.

“Over the years it’s evolved,’’ said Fay Ferguson, co-chief executive of Burrell Communications, an advertising agency that specializes in marketing toward black consumers. “We’ve come a long way in how we see black women in advertising.’’

Stereotypical portrayals of blacks in commercials have drawn criticism from civil rights groups for decades. Some of the earliest and most iconic examples of blacks in advertising — Rastus the Cream of Wheat chef, Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben — showed blacks in subservient roles that recalled the days of slavery.

Those images have been toned down over the years (Aunt Jemima’s red bandanna, for example, was replaced with pearl earrings and a lace collar in 1989) and are no longer as overtly stereotypical as they once were. And now there are many examples of blacks presented in middle-class settings and engaged in mainstream activities.

To some, the freer use of overweight black women in comic situations suggests a welcome change that reflects a broader acceptability of blacks in the media. But others find the recurring use of the image a return to a disturbing past.

And some say these images may serve to exacerbate misunderstanding between whites and blacks.

“Not only are we being given images of who we are supposed to be, but others are also formulating their images of us based on that,” said Marilyn Kern Foxworth, an author and marketing expert who studies how blacks are portrayed in advertising. “People have already determined who we are and how we’re going to react in certain situations.”

The heavy black female makes one of her latest appearances in a commercial for the Dairy Queen Blizzard. In the spot, a man boarding an airplane sets his ice cream shake down so he can load his bag into an overhead compartment. As he reaches up, another passenger on the plane starts eating the Blizzard. Seeing this, the first man lets go of his bag so he can reclaim his Blizzard and inadvertently drops his luggage on another passenger’s head.

That unlucky passenger happens to be an overweight black woman who lets out an irritated gasp that reminds all the passengers around her who not to mess with.

Rick Cusato, executive vice president for Grey Worldwide, the firm that wrote the campaign for Dairy Queen, said the script was not written with a black actress in mind.

“We basically cast the funniest person,” he said. “We didn’t specifically cast for a black woman. We said, ‘Wow, she’s really funny.’ And she happened to be black.”

Another new Dairy Queen commercial features a similar character — played by the same actress — working as an airport security screener. When a man tries to walk through a metal detector eating a Dairy Queen burger, her eyes dart disapprovingly downward at him. Then she barks, “Uh, uh. Get on!” directing him to walk through again.

Michael Keller, Dairy Queen’s chief brand officer, said the company considered actors of all sizes and races before making a decision. “We looked at male body builders, really big tall women. We looked at just about everybody we could,” he said. “She projected an image that was everything we wanted it to be. This is just a strong woman being herself.” He added that the company had not received any complaints about the ads being racially insensitive. But to some these images are troubling.

“It’s not an accident that she’s African-American and heavy,” said Howard Buford, founder and chief executive of Prime Access, an advertising agency that creates commercials marketed toward minority audiences. “There’s certainly a long heritage of large African-American women who are kind of sassy and feisty and humorously angry. There’s a sense that this whole value system is O.K. again.”

Large black actresses have had recurring roles in commercials over the years, and often are cast in roles where their aggressiveness is a defining trait. The heavy black spokeswoman for Pine Sol was one of the first to embrace the role. Her aggression was aimed at household dirt, however, not people. In a recent commercial for Captain Morgan rum, a large black woman berates her man for playing dominoes and making her late.

In one recent Twix commercial, a full-figured black woman asks her boyfriend if her pants make her rear end look big. As the camera focuses on her plump backside (exaggerated by the camera for effect), the man stuffs his face with a Twix bar and mumbles an indecipherable answer.

Pleased with his response, the woman walks away. She is not shown being aggressive or loud, but the commercial leaves the impression that if the man had given the wrong answer, she might have erupted.

A series of Universal Studios commercials star a heavy black woman who is accompanying her children on a Jurassic Park ride. Frightened by the ride, she roars and buries the heads of her two young children in her bosom.

Black advertising executives have noticed the stereotype.

“There’s an image out there of black women being boisterous, overbearing, controlling and extremely aggressive in their behavior,” said Carol H. Williams, who runs her own advertising firm in Oakland, Calif., that specializes in marketing toward blacks. “I really don’t know why that stereotype is laughed at.”

Some have trouble with the new commercial images in part because they are being created by white writers.

“There are images of African-Americans created for white people by white people and there are images of African-Americans created for African-Americans,’’ Mr. Buford said. “And there’s a big difference.”

The lack of diversity on Madison Avenue has been a long-standing issue. In fact, the New York City Commission on Human Rights is investigating the hiring practices of advertising agencies in the city and is looking at how they have approached employing blacks.

Jannette L. Dates, dean of the communications school at Howard University, said that while whites and blacks could watch the same portrayal of a large black woman on television and laugh, they are laughing for different reasons.

Some whites, Ms. Dates said, may laugh thinking, “Wow, she’s so ridiculous. My people aren’t like that.” She added: “They wouldn’t consciously feel that way. But there is something going on subconsciously because that’s what advertising is all about. They’re trying to tap into some feeling, some emotion, some psychological hang-up.”

Blacks, meanwhile, might laugh because they can identify with the character, Ms. Dates said. “It’s for both the people who want to snicker and say, ‘See, that’s how they are.’ And for people to say, ‘There’s one of us.’ ”

Orlando Patterson, a sociology professor at Harvard, amplified that point. “To the black audience, this may be, ‘You do your thing, sister,’ ” Professor Patterson said. “The white audience is laughing with her. Then they go back to reality, and they laugh at her.”

But Liz Gumbinner, a creative director at David and Goliath, the agency that developed the Universal campaign, said the broad appeal of the commercials was proof they were not insensitively playing on racial stereotypes.

Noting that a black woman in a recent David and Goliath focus group spoke up about how much she liked the Universal ads, Ms. Gumbinner said: “I wonder if sometimes when you have somebody that is less conventional, they become the most memorable. We use a lot of bald men, and it’s not like we have it out for bald men.”

Ms. Gumbinner and Mr. Cusato of Grey Advertising, however, said no black writers were involved in either of their campaigns.

As is typically the case with racial stereotypes, who is laughing and why is complex and potentially inflammatory. Black actors and comedians have profited handsomely from creating bumptious female characters on TV and in movies, raising the issue of whether they, too, are perpetuating the stereotypes that many find offensive.

Tyler Perry, the filmmaker and actor, created a series of plays and movies, including the huge hit “Diary of a Mad Black Woman,” in which the main character Mable (Madea) Simmons is a no-nonsense overweight matriarch. Mo’Nique, a full-figured comedian, has built a routine on being outlandish, brash and, at times, downright crude.

Mr. Buford, of Prime Access, said part of what makes the comedy of Mr. Perry and Mo’Nique acceptable is that it is written from a personal experience common to many blacks.

“Authenticity makes a lot of difference,” he said. “It’s authenticity born of having lived that life versus having been cast in that role.”

Nostalgia?

“Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” - Vladimir V. Putin

ISTAC dikuasai Wahabi?

Dari laman Jaringan Islam Liberal:

Paradoks "Islam Hadhari"
Oleh LUTFI ASSYAUKANIE

"Tapi, sejak ada pertikaian antara Mahathir dan Anwar, megaproyek “Islam Peradaban” mengalami ancaman serius. Lembaga-lembaga pemikiran (think tank) yang dulu dijadikan sebagai tulang punggung bagi proyek itu terbengkelai dan diambil alih oleh kaum puritan berpikiran sempit. Sejak tahun 1998, ISTAC terus digerogoti oleh kaum konservatif dan kini didominasi oleh para sarjana yang menghamba pada Wahabisme dan Talibanisme."

Artikel penuh