Fatwa MUI dan Pandangan Fuqaha Tentang Nabi Palsu

Kamis, 22 November 2007

Dalam Mahzab Syafi’i, jika seseorang mengatakan, “Seandainya fulan itu menjadi nabi, maka aku membenarkannya”, maka, perkataan seperti itu sudah murtad

Oleh:Thoriq*

Fatwa MUI tentang sesatnya aliran Al-Qiyadah disambut positif oleh mayoritas umat Islam Indonesia yang menghendaki kejelasan hukum atas kehadiran kelompok ini. Akan tetapi seperti biasa, kelompok liberal tidak akan rela dengan munculnya fatwa itu. Salah satu diantara mereka adalah penulis “Sesatnya Kriteria Sesat”, Mohamad Guntur Romli. (Jawapos, 14/11). Intinya, ia tidak setuju dengan kriteria sesat yang telah ditetapkan MUI, karena ia berpendapat bahwa penyesatan hanya milik Allah.

Tentu, pernyataan si penulis ini otomatis batal dengan perkataan ia sendiri, karena ia sendiri “menyesatkan” kriteria MUI. Kita bisa pakai logika si penulis juga, mengapa dia berani “menyesatkan” fatwa MUI? Bukankah ia menyatakan bahwa sesat dan tidak sesat adalah hak Allah? Ini menunjukkan bahwa si penulis “plin-plan” terhadap sikapnya. Karena, kalau ia konsisten, tentu ia tidak perlu “menyesatkan” fatwa MUI.

Ia juga berpendapat bahwa para ulama tidak memiliki wewenang untuk menghukumi seseorang kafir atau tidak. Pendapat ini perlu dalil shorih yang menjelaskan bahwa ulama memang tidak boleh mengkafirkan seseorang yang sudah jelas-jelas tidak mengakui seluruh atau sebagian syari’at, atau mengingkari risalah Rasulullah atau mengingkari hal-hal yang mutawatir atau mengingkari bahwa Rasulullah adalah utusan terakhir. Dan tidak cukup sampai di situ, si penulis juga harus bisa menunjukkan dalil sharih yang menyatakan bahwa orang yang sudah melakukan pengingkaran sampai tahap itu masih bisa dianggap Muslim.

Tentu yang ada hanyalah dalil bolehnya ulama mengkafirkan mereka yang sudah jelas kafir. Yaitu dalil-dalil yang memerintahkan agar umat Islam berpegang teguh dengan nash Al Quran dan Sunnah. Dan Al Quran dan Sunnah telah menjelaskan kriteria mukmin dan kafir, yang berfungsi untuk membedakan siapa yang masih disebut mukmin dan siapa yang disebut kafir. Hingga tidak salah jika ulama menghukumi seseorang sebagai kafir, dengan mengambil pedoman dari Al Quruan dan Sunnah, bahkan wajib demi menjaga agama ini.



Nabi Palsu dalam Pendangan Fuqaha

Masalah munculnya nabi-nabi palsu telah direspon serius oleh para ulama sejak dulu. Tak hanya hari ini. Karena hal ini menyangkut masalah yang amat serius pula, yaitu masalah keimanan. Ini disebabkan dalil qath’i baik dari Al Quran, Sunnah, serta ijma telah menyatakan bahwa Rasulullah Muhammad saw. adalah nabi yang terakhir, dan tidak ada syari’at yang harus diikuti kecuali syari’at yang telah beliau bawa.

Atas dasar nash-nash itulah para fuqaha menyatakan bahwa mereka yang mengaku-ngaku sebagai nabi otomatis telah kufur, bagitu juga mereka yang mengikutinya. Al Muthi’i dalam Syarh Al Muhadzab (20/371), salah satu kitab pokok dalam madzhab Syafi’i menyebutkan, “Begitu juga (telah murtad) orang yang mengaku nabi setelah Nabi Muhammad saw. serta orang yang mengikutinya”.

Ia juga menyebutkan bahwa para ulama telah bersepakat, jika ada seseorang mengatakan, “Seandainya fulan itu menjadi nabi, maka aku membenarkannya”, maka, menurut Al Muthi’i, ia telah murtad. Al Muthi’i juga merujuk perkataan Imam Syafi’i yang menyatakan,”Ada beberapa orang yang murtad setelah Islam, mereka adalah Thalhah, Musailamah, ‘Ansa beserta para pengikut mereka”.

Ulama dari kalangan madzhab Hambali pun memiliki pendapat yang serupa, Ibnu Al Qudamah dalam Al Mughni (2/2181), rujukan pokok madzhab Hambali, menyatakan,”Barang siapa mengaku-ngaku sebagai nabi atau membenarkan seruannya, maka ia telah murtad!”.

Imam Al Qurthubi dan “bisikan” hati

Ulama dari Madzhab Maliki, Imam Al Qurthubi dalam Al Jami’ li Ahkami Al Quran (4/37) menyatakan,”Termasuk dalam golongan ini (Musailamah dan sejenisnya) seseorang yang menolak fiqih dan sunnah yang dipegang para salaf, dan ia mengatakan, ”Hatiku berbisik kepadaku begini”, lalu dia jadikan bisikan hatinya itu sebagai hukum dan ia menganggap bahwa itu disebabkan kesucian hatinya dari kotoran, hingga nampaklah ilmu-ilmu ilahiyah dan hakikat rabaniyah, akhirnya ia mencukupkan bisikan hatinya daripada hukum syari’at. Lalu ia mengatakan, “Syari’at hanya berlaku kepada orang awam, sedangkan orang-orang istimewa tidak perlu menggunakannya”… Ini adalah perkataan zindiq dan orang yang mengatakannya telah kafir, pelakunya harus dibunuh, tanpa diminta bertaubat terlebih dahulu, karena dengan begitu otomatis ia menetapkan bahwa ada nabi setelah Nabi kita Muhammad saw.

Muhammad Syafi’, ulama madzhab Hanafi yang sekaligus menjadi mufti Pakistan menyatakan juga dalam At Tasyrih bima Tawatara fi Nuzul Al Masih,”Ketika tidak ada nash yang menunjukkan adanya kenabian bagi seseorang, setelah Rasulullah, bahkan sebaliknya (yang ada adalah penafian adanya kenabian setelah Rasulullah) maka orang yang mengaku nabi telah kafir menurut Al Quran, Sunnah mutawatir serta ijma’.


Dalil bahwa Rasulullah saw. Rasul terakhir

Penetapan bahwa Rasulullah adalah rasul sekaligus nabi terakhir oleh para ulama berdasarkan surat Al Ahzab, ayat 40: ”Bukanlah Muhammad itu bapak salah seorang laki-laki di antara kamu tetapi dia adalah Rasulullah dan khatam (penutup) nabi-nabi”. Imam Al Qurthubi dalam Al Jami’ Al Ahkam-nya (7/496), mengatakan bahwa jama’ah salaf dan khalaf menyatakan, ayat ini menunjukkan bahwa tidak ada nabi setelah Rasulullah. Para mufasirin dan fuqaha seperti Imam Syafi’i dalam Al Umm, Ibnu Katsir, Imam As Syaukani dalam Fathu Al Qadir beserta ahli tafsir kontemporer seperti Al Maraghi, As Shabuni serta Muhammad Abduh dalam Al Manar menyatakan hal yang sama.

Beberapa hadits pun memiliki makna bahwa Rasulullah saw. adalah rasul terakhir, salah satunya adalah hadits: “Sesungguhnya saya mempunyai nama-nama, saya Muhammad, saya Ahmad, saya Al-Mahi, yang mana Allah menghapuskan kekafiran karena saya, saya Al-Hasyir yang mana manusia berkumpul di kaki saya, saya Al-Aqib yang tidak ada Nabi setelahnya” (HR. Muslim)


Karena amat banyak jalan periwayatannya, maka Hafidz Ibnu Katsir dalam tafsirnya (6/452) menyatakan bahwa hadits ini mencapai derajat mutawatir. Pernyataan ini diamini oleh mufti Pakistan Muhammad Syafi’.

Sebagaimana disebutkan juga oleh Ibnu Katsir, bahwa hadits-hadist mutawatir itu disamping menunjukkan bahwa tidak ada rasul setelah Muhammad saw. ia juga menginformasikan bahwa, jika ada seseorang yang mengaku-ngaku nabi maka bisa dipastikan bahwa orang itu adalah pembohong besar, sesat dan menyesatkan, walau ia bisa menunjukkan hal-hal yang aneh atau memiliki ilmu sihir. Informasi ini adalah salah satu bentuk kecintaan Allah kepada hambanya (hingga mereka tidak tersesat).

Selain Al Quran dan Sunnah, ijma’ juga menyatakan bahwa Rasulullah adalah nabi terakhir. Ini disebutkan oleh Ibnu Hazm dalam Al Maratib Al Ijma’ yang dinukil oleh Ibnu Al Qathan Al Fasi dalam Al Iqna’ fi Masa’il Al Ijma (1/33).

Kekufuran Para Pengingkar Syari’at yang Mutawatir

Tentu yang namanya nabi palsu pasti menyeru kepada hal-hal yang mungkar dan bathil, sebagaimana fakta yang terjadi di lapangan, mereka mengajak penganutnya untuk meninggalkan ajaran-ajaran Rasulullah saw, seperti shalat, zakat atau ibadah-ibadah lain yang sudah disepakati kewajibannya dalam Islam. Atau menghalalkan apa yang diharamkan Allah serta mengharamkan apa yang dihalalkan Allah.

Mengamalkan ajaran-ajaran mereka itu tidak sebatas maksiat biasa, karena hal itu pun sudah masuk kepada wilayah kekufuran. Ibnu Al Qudamah dalam Al Mughni (2/2172) mengatakan,”Bagitu juga (dihukumi murtad, bagi mereka yang mengingkari) dasar-dasar Islam seperti zakat, puasa, haji, karena dalil yang menunjukkan fardhunya amalan-amalan itu hampir tidak bisa dihitung dan ijma’ pun menyatakan hal yang serupa”.

Ibnu Hazm menyebutkan dalam Maratib Al Ijma’,sesuai dengan nukilan Ibnu Al Qathan Al Fasi dalam Al Iqna’ fi Masa’il Al Ijma (1/126): “Umat bersepakat, barang siapa beriman kepada Allah dan Rasulnya, serta hal-hal yang dibawanya yang dinukil secara mutawatir darinya dan tidak ragu dalam masalah tauhid atau kenabian beliau serta tiap-tiap huruf dari hal-hal yang beliau bawa yang dinukil secara mutawatir. Dan barang siapa menolak sesuatu dari hal-hal yang telah kami sebutkan atau ragu atasnya dan mati kadalam keadaan itu, maka ia telah kafir dan kekal di neraka”.

Kesimpulannya, bahwa ijma’ telah menyatakan bahwa hal-hal yang dinukil secara mutawatir dalam Islam seperti kewajiban shalat, zakat, haji, termasuk khabar yang menyatakan bahwa Rasulullah adalah nabi terakhir atau yang lain, wajib diimani. Dan barang siapa yang menolak maka ia telah kafir.

Berpedoman dari dalil-dalil di atas maka tidak ada yang perlu dipermasalahkan dalam fatwa MUI, karena pendapat lembaga ini sesuai dengan nash Al Quran, Sunnah dan Ijma. Kalau sudah masuk ranah ijma’ maka tidak mungkin terjadi kesalahan atau kesesatan karena Rasulullah sendiri bersabda:” Sesungguhnya umatku tidak akan bersepakat dalam kesesatan”. Hadist ini mencapai derajat mutawatir dari segi makna menurut Al Fahru Ar Razi dalam Al Mahshul (1/35), juga Al Khatib Al Baghdadi dalam Faqih wa Al Mutafaqqih (2/167).

Jika pengkafiran terhadap mereka yang menyelisihi pokok-pokok agama Islam tidak mungkin sesat, maka tentu para pembaca bisa menilai, siapa yang sesat sebenarnya, MUI atau pihak yang “menyesatkan” MUI? Wallahu’alam bishowab.

*) Penulis adalah lulusan Al-Azhar, Kairo



http://hidayatullah.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5831&Itemid=60

Jaringan Islam Liberal Dan Kesesatannya

Oleh: Azhari
Maraknya JIL dimasa reformasi bersamaan dengan keinginan kuat umat Islam untuk menerapkan Syari’at Islam bukanlah suatu kebetulan, sepertinya JIL ini dibentuk untuk menghadang kelompok “Fundamentalis” yang ingin kembali kepada Islam secara Kaffah. Berikut ini mari kita coba telaah lebih jauh apa itu JIL, tujuannya dan ide-ide yang diusungnya.

JIL yakni sebuah kelompok dikomandoi oleh Ulil Absar Abdalla, seorang yang dikenal sangat dekat dengan NU dan menantu seorang Kiai NU. Selain Ulil, kontributor JIL yang lain adalah:

o Nurcholish Madjid, Universitas Paramadina, Jakarta
o Azyumardi Azra, IAIN Syarif Hidayatullah (Universitas Islam Negara), Jakarta

o Masdar F. Mas'udi, Pusat Pengembangan Pesantren dan Masyarakat, Jakarta
o Goenawan Mohamad, Majalah Tempo, Jakarta
o Djohan Effendi, Deakin University, Australia
o Jalaluddin Rahmat, Yayasan Muthahhari, Bandung
o Moeslim Abdurrahman, Jakarta
o Nasaruddin Umar, IAIN Syarif Hidayatullah (Universitas Islam Negara), Jakarta
o Komaruddin Hidayat, Yayasan Paramadina, Jakarta , dan lain-lain.

Kelompok ini bertujuan ingin membuat suatu bentuk penafsiran baru atas agama Islam dengan wawasan sebagai berikut:

a. Keterbukaan pintu ijtihad pada semua bidang;
b. Penekanan pada semangat religio etik, bukan pada makna literal sebuah teks;
c. Kebenaran yang relatif, terbuka dan plural;
d. Pemihakan pada yang minoritas dan tertindas;
e. Kebebasan beragama dan berkepercayaan;
f. Pemisahan otoritas duniawi dan ukhrawi, otoritas keagamaan dan politik.

Istilah Islam liberal ini bukanlah hal yang baru dan telah diusung oleh Nurcholis Madjid pada tahun 70-an, hanya saja gaungnya sekarang lebih besar karena mereka didukung dana yang sangat besar dari luar negeri dan mereka menguasai jaringan media massa (Radio, Jawa Pos, Kompas, Tempo, Metro TV, dan lian-lain).

Menurut JIL, nama “Islam Liberal” menggambarkan prinsip-prinsip yang menekankan kebebasan pribadi (seusai dengan doktrin kaum Mu'tazilah tentang kebebasan manusia), dan “pembebasan” struktur sosial-politik dari dominasi yang tidak sehat dan menindas. Sederhananya JIL ingin mengatakan bahwa secara pribadi bebas (liberal) menafsirkan Islam sesuai hawa nafsunya dan membebaskan (liberal) negara dari intervensi agama (sekuler).

Unik memang, pada saat seseorang telah menyatakan menganut Islam maka ia terikat dengan hukum syara’ atau ia seorang mukhallaf dan ia tidak bebas lagi (liberal) karena ucapan dan perilakunya telah dibatasi oleh syari’at. Disisi lain bagaimana mungkin bisa menggabungkan antara Islam dan Liberal karena keduanya adalah ideologi yang saling bertentangan. Islam meyakini bahwa Syari’at Allah harus dijalankan diseluruh sisi kehidupan, sedangkan Liberal meyakini pemisahan urusan agama dan negara.

Baiknya coba kita permudah pembahasan ide-ide JIL ini dalam 3 topik saja, yakni:

1. Ijtihad: keterbukaan pintu ijtihad pada semua bidang
2. Inklusifisme: kebenaran yang relatif, terbuka dan plural
3. Sekuler: pemisahan otoritas duniawi dan ukhrawi, otoritas keagamaan dan politik



1. Ijtihad

JIL meyakini bahwa pintu ijtihad masih terbuka dalam semua bidang dan untuk semua orang, penutupan pintu ijtihad akan menutup pintu akal dan kreatifitas seseorang.

Pintu ijtihad memang masih terbuka hingga saat ini tetapi para ulama telah memberikan batasan dalam hal apa saja boleh berijtihad dan syarat seseorang mampu mengeluarkan ijtihad (mujtahid).

Setiap orang boleh saja berijtihad tetapi ulama memberikan syarat-syarat seorang mujtahid, antara lain:

a. Pengetahuan bahasa Arab, lafadz dan susunan (tarkib) yang berhubungan dengan dalil-dalil hukum yang akan digali (istimbath);
b. Pengetahuan terhadap syara' yakni nash (dalil) dari al-Qur'an dan Sunnah;
c. Pengetahuan terhadap waqi' yang akan dihukumi.

Bahkan DR Yusuf Qaradhawi (Masalah-masalah Islam kontemporer) memberikan syarat yang lebih berat semisal pengetahuan bahasa Arab, mengetahui tempat-tempat ijma’ yang tepat, ushul fiqih, qiyas dan penyimpulan, kaidah-kaidah syara’. Syarat lain harus adil, bertaqwa, tidak mengikuti hawa nafsu atau menjual agamanya untuk kehidupan dunia. Dengan demikian menurut Yusuf Qaradhawi, ijtihad bukan pintu yang terbuka bagi semua orang.

Disisi lain pintu ijtihad tertutup untuk nash-nash (dalil) qath'i tsubut (sudah pasti dari segi wujud) dan qath'i dilalah (sudah pasti dari segi petunjuk). Seperti dalil-dalil berikut:

Orang perempuan dan laki-laki yang berzina jilidlah masing-masing dari keduanya seratus kali jilid. (Qs. an-Nuur [24]: 2).

Laki-laki yang mencuri dan perempuan yang mencuri, potonglah tangan keduanya (sebagai) pembalasan bagi apa yang mereka kerjakan dan sebagai siksaan dari Allah. (Qs. al-Maa'idah [5]: 38).

Atau kewajiban shalat, puasa, haji, adanya malaikat, syaithan, lauhul mahfuz, akhirat, dan lain-lain. Disini akal tidak mampu lagi menjangkaunya dan kita wajib mengimaninya sesuai dengan penjelesan al-Qur'an dan sunnah.

Masalah terbukanya pintu ijtihad ini merupakan gerbang utama bagi JIL untuk menghancurkan syari’at Islam, karena jika berhasil meyakinkan umat bahwa ijtihad masih terbuka untuk semua bidang dan setiap orang maka mereka dapat menafsirkan ayat-ayat Allah dan hadits sesuai hawa nafsu mereka. Seperti yang sempat dihebohkan beberapa waktu yang lalu tentang “Jilbab tidak wajib dan merupakan kebudayaan Arab”; “Laki-laki non-muslim boleh mengawini muslimah”; “Kebebasan beragama atau murtad”; dan lain-lain.



2. Inklusifisme

Inklusifisme secara ringkas dapat diartikan tidak eksklusif atau tidak merasa paling benar sendiri, dalam bahasa JIL bahwa agama itu seperti roda yang mempunyai jari-jari. Setiap agama adalah jari-jari dari roda tersebut, jika semua pemeluk agama (apapun agamanya) dan dia berbuat saleh maka semuanya akan menuju kesatu titik poros roda tersebut yakni syurga. Artinya, seorang Muslim, Nasrani, Hindu, Budha atau Konghucu, bila menjalankan agama dengan benar (saleh) maka semuanya akan masuk syurga.

Hal ini jelas bertentangan dengan aqidah Islam, Innaddiina'indallahil Islami.

Sesungguhnya dien (agama/sistem hidup) yang diridhai Allah adalah Islam. (Qs. Ali-Imran [3]: 19).

Barangsiapa yang mengambil selain Islam sebagai dien, tidak akan diterima apapun darinya dan ia diakhirat tergolong orang yang rugi. (Qs. Ali-Imran [3]: 85).

Pada hari ini telah Aku sempurnakan untuk kalian agama kalian, telah Aku cukupkan atas kalian nikmat-Ku, dan telah Aku ridhai Islam sebagai agama bagi kalian. (Qs. al-Maa'idah [5]: 3).

Hai orang yang beriman, bertaqwalah kepada Allah sebenar-benarnya taqwa kepada-Nya, dan janganlah sekali-kali kamu mati melainkan dalam keadaan beragama Islam. (Qs. Ali-Imran [3]: 102).

Islam itu unggul dan tidak ada yang dapat mengunggulinya. [HR Bukhari].

Dan Islam tidak bisa disamakan dengan agama-agama lain tersebut karena seorang Muslim yang beriman maka syurga balasannya, sedangkan orang-orang kafir dan musyrik itu adalah orang-orang yang sesat dan merugi serta kekal dalam neraka,

Sesungguhnya Allah tidak mengampuni dosa syirik. Dan Dia mengampuni dosa selain syirik itu bagi siapa saja yang dikehendaki-Nya. Siapa saja yang menyekutukan sesuatu dengan Allah, maka sesungguhnya ia tersesat sejauh-jauhnya. (Qs. an-Nisaa’ [4]: 116).

Hai orang yang beriman, jika kamu mengikuti sebahagian dari orang-orang yang yang diberi Alkitab, niscaya mereka akan mengembalikan kamu menjadi orang kafir sesudah kamu beriman. (Qs. Ali-Imran [3]: 100).

Dengan konsep yang menyesatkan ini, maka umat akan dengan mudah murtad karena mereka merasa dengan memeluk selain Islampun mereka akan masuk syurga juga.



3. Sekuler

Menurut JIL, Islam tidak mengenal pemerintahan dan agama tidak mempunyai kewenangan dalam mengatur negara.

Jika kita ingin menerapkan Islam secara kaffah dalam semua sektor kehidupan kita maka mau tidak mau harus memformalkan syari’at Allah Swt yang terdapat dalam al-Qur'an dan sunnah dalam bentuk Undang-undang (UU), dan sebuah UU tidak akan berjalan jika tidak dipayungi oleh sebuah pemerintahan (daulah). Hal ini-pun telah dicontohkan oleh Rasulullah saw dan khalifah-khalifah sesudah beliau.

Beliau menjalankan pemerintahan di Madinah, menetapkan hukum-hukum eknomi/perdagangan, sosial/pergaulan, politik luar negeri, membentuk pasukan, peradilan, pendidikan, dan lain-lain. Beliau mengangkat pembantu-pembantu (mu’awin), wali, amirul jihad, amil, qadhi, dll. Dan dilanjutkan oleh Khulafaur Rasyidin dengan mengangkat Abu Bakar, Umar, Utsman dan Ali, kemudian kekhalifahan Bani Muawiyah, Abassiyah hingga Utsmaniyah. Hal ini merupakan suatu fakta bahwa Islam mengenal negara atau Islam tidak bisa dipisahkan dengan negara.

Banyak dalil-dalil yang mewajibkan terbentuknya sebuah Khilafah Islamiyah ini,

Bila dibai'at dua orang Khalifah (pada waktu yang sama), maka perangilah orang yang kedua. [al-Hadist].

(Dan) Siapa saja yang mati dan di pundaknya tidak ada bai'at (kepada Khalifah), maka ia mati dalam keadaan seperti mati jahiliah. [HR Muslim].

Maka demi Tuhanmu. Mereka tidak beriman (sebenarnya) sehingga mereka menjadikan kamu hakim untuk memutuskan perselisihan antara mereka. Kemudian mereka tidak merasa dalam hatinya keberatan terhadap putusanmu, dan menerima dengan perasaan lega. (Qs. an-Nisaa’ [4]: 65).

Dan kita sangat merindukan tegaknya kembali kekhilafahan Islam ini setelah vakum selama 80 tahun, disaat runtuhnya Khilafah Utsmaniyah di Turki tahun 1924 M.

Demikianlah sepak terjang JIL dengan aqidah sesatnya dan menyesatkan umat, dan merupakan tantangan bagi para hamilud dakwah untuk lebih intensif berinteraksi dengan umat untuk mensosialisasikan betapa pentingnya tegaknya syari’at Islam. Wallahua’lam

Sumber: Swara Muslim (http://swaramuslim.net/more.php?id=A1663_0_1_0_M)
http://www.ikastara.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-691.html

BERHENTI MENGEJAR KESOLEHAN PRIBADI

BERHENTILAH UNTUK MENGEJAR KESOLEHAN PRIBADI !!!

ISLAM ADALAH RAHMAT BAGI SELURUH ALAM, TIDAK BISA DIBANTAH.
TAPI BUKAN BERATI UNTUK DINJAK-INJAK
DIHINA SEMAUNYA
DIPOJOKKAN HANYA SEBAGAI RITUAL JUMAT ATAU SETAHUN SEKALI.

ISLAM ADALAH SUATU GERAKAN SOSIAL YANG MEMBAWA KEPADA KEDAMAIAN, KESEJAHTERAAN
YANG MEMBAWA PADA KEBEBASAN SEJATI

DALAM ISLAM, MANUSIA TERBEBAS DARI SEGALA HUKUM YANG DIBUAT OLEH MANUSIA LAIN...
TERBEBAS DARI SEGALA BELENGGU HAWA NAFSU

DAN HANYA TUNDUK PADA DZAT YANG MENCIPTAKAN KITA, IALAH ALLAH SWT.
INILAH KEBEBASAN YANG SESUNGGUHNYA !!!

MARI KITA BEBASKAN MANUSIA-MANUSIA YANG LAIN !!!


silmy kaffah
hamba ALLAH yang merangkak menuju istiqomah di jalan-Nya

World Bank faces serious corruption problems

Pravda -- http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/13-09-2007/97073-world_bank_corruption-0

Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman, on Wednesday blamed World Bank staff and directors for failing to take corruption sufficiently seriously and said this had been the root cause of strife over its internal anti-corruption watchdog.

Mr Volcker's comments come ahead of Thursday's release of a report that concluded the Bank's anti­corruption unit should be stripped of responsibilities for minor staff misconduct and placed under new oversight.

Mr Volcker's comments will be seen by supporters of Paul Wolfowitz as a vindication of the former bank president who was forced from office in an ethics scandal, but present tricky challenges for his successor, Robert Zoellick.

In an interview with the FT on Wednesday, Mr Volcker said his inquiry had "reconfirmed" there was "ambivalence in the bank as to whether they really want an effective anti-corruption programme or not". "The board itself has been ambivalent."

He indicated this uncertainty extended to ministers and representatives of its leading donors. He saw "some parallels" with his prior investigation into the United Nations' handling of the oil-for-food programme.

The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.

While every bank official who talked to his committee claimed they took corruption seriously, he doubted this was always the case.

There were "legitimate complaints on both sides" about the anti-corruption unit. But he attributed the tension largely to those at the bank not sincerely committed to its anti-corruption efforts, saying this was the "underlying fundamental" problem, FT.com reports.

Part of the problem may be the continued concern that anti-corruption efforts can be seen as "anti-development," the report said, citing a tendency to avoid confrontation with borrowing countries who are members of the World Bank Group.

"A lack of common purpose, distrust, and uncertainty has enveloped the anticorruption work of the bank," the report said.

It said some World Bank units "have failed to recognize the importance of anticorruption and governance efforts in working with client nations."

The report makes some specific recommendations, including giving the integrity department's director the rank of vice president, moving responsibility for investigating minor staff misconduct out of the department, increasing diversity of the unit's staff and subjecting the department to regular internal audits and other measures to evaluate its performance.

The bank said it would establish a working group to consider the recommendations and will post the report and its own proposals on its Web site, washingtontimes.com reports.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=119&a=3565

Central Banks are irrelevant

By Shelby Moore, III -- http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2007/0927.html

Hopefully someday the following will be recognized as a canonical essay in the field of economics.

I will explain, that Central Banks are powerless to stop the boom and bust cycles, which are instead caused by society's insatiable desire to save (and borrow) with interest. The usury saver is no less culpable than the borrower.

A global, debt-based boom has been caused by declining long interest rates since 1982. The chart of the 30 year US Treasury Bonds shows a steady decline in yield (interest rate) since 1982. This is an accelerating secular, declining interest rate trend (a bubble), caused by fact that owners of bonds earn increasing capital gains when future bonds are sold at declining yields. Human nature tends to believe that the longer a trend has existed, then more confidence can be placed in the trend continuing. Thus everyone wants to pile in as the trend becomes popular over time.

This secular, declining interest rate trend that began in 1982, was caused by the (or caused the) end of the Cold War and the resultant "globalization", in which billions of people exited socialism to compete for jobs, thus driving global prices down. The very high interest rates just prior to this, were due to the end in 1971 of the exclusive debt bubble in the USA. I will explain below why debt bubbles always end with high interest rates. Under Bretton Woods, US citizens were on a fiat money system (were not allowed to own gold), while the rest of the world was on a gold dollar standard (could trade their paper dollars for gold that had been confiscated from US citizens in 1933).

There is nothing the US Federal Reserve (the "Fed") can do which would prevent the coming bottom of this secular, declining interest rate trend, and the subsequently rising long interest rates.

If Fed Raises Short-Term Rates
If the Fed were to significantly raise short-term fiat interest rates (i.e. decrease or hold steady the fiat money supply), the ensuing fiat credit crisis would (after an initial stampede into government bonds) drive savers out of long bonds, and into gold. Thus, long bond yields (interest rates) would rise, due to decreased demand for long bonds. Let me explain the process. As of Sept 2007, a fiat credit crisis would be induced or accelerated by rising short-term interest rates, because the debt boom (at least within the USA, with rest of world highly entangled to US debt) has peaked and can no longer service it's debts without an accelerating supply of fiat money. In the initial stages of a fiat credit crisis, savers stampede from defaultable bonds and businesses, into the perceived safey of government-backed bonds. Business defaults domino because they can only borrow money at very high interest rates. Also, fear of defaults discourages private investment. The government (i.e. collective society) will always choose to borrow and spend more, in order to offset the spiraling loss of jobs which results from a spiraling credit crisis. The increasing spiral of government borrowing thus increases the supply of government bonds for sale, which outspirals the increasing demand for government bonds. Thus government bond yields (interest rates) rise. The spiraling of government borrowing exceeds the stampede into government bonds because of the failure of an increasingly collective economy (Russia tried socialism already). In short, the government as a central manager of the economy, will failure miserably, thus government borrowing would become incessant. For one thing, just imagine all the incentive for corrupt waste of money ("hands in the cookie jar"), when the economy is increasing managed by politicians. So as all interest rates rise (private and government borrowing), causing spiraling failure, the government and it's fiat money is no longer perceived to be safe. The secular trend of rising interest rates causes the existing bonds to lose value, as future bonds are sold at increasing yields. This causes a spiraling stampede out of all long bonds, even government backed bonds. Thus, a stampede into gold is the ultimate result of spiraling upward long interest rates.

If Fed Lowers Short-Term Rates
If the US Fed were to significantly lower short-term fiat interest rates (i.e. increase the fiat money supply), the ensuing fiat credit boom would increase the size of the debt bubble, which will require even lower rates to sustain in near future. This induces a blow off peak in the secular global debt bubble trend. Prices hyperinflate once all feasible unproductive sectors of the global economy have been saturated with debt (and thus made "productive"). Price hyperinflation drives interest rates higher, because borrowers demand more loans so their lifestyles can pace with rising prices. Saving at interest rates lower than the price hyperinflation results in a loss of net worth. So even if savers are fooled (by hedonics, etc) into holding savings with negative real interest rates, their demand for bonds decreases (relative to the increasing demand from borrows) as the size of savers' net worth decreases in real terms. Thus, due to the rising imbalance between supply and demand, then as long interest rates increase, the blow off peak has occurred. Then the result and logic is the same as the prior section-- private business defaults domino, government attempts to borrow and spend, there is stampede into gold, etc..

Note if other fiat currency central banks do not lower their interest rates, then the dollar could fall precipitously in relative fiat value. This would also cause price hyperinflation within the dollar economy. Since the dollar economy is the global economy, this would cause widespread price hyperinflation. If the other central banks lower their interest rates, then they also induce price hyperinflation.

If Fed Holds Steady
Although this is what Bernanke is attempting to do, he is just riding the waves of what the public does. When the public stampeded out of private debt into government debt in August 2007, then the public effectively raised the private sector interest rates, and temporarily lowered the government interest rates. The Fed had no choice but to lower it's short-term interest rates in order to keep private business from failing.

In a futile attempt to prevent hyperinflation, the Bernanke Fed is attempting to manage the distribution of the increased money supply, retiring money supply from the private sector by selling government long bonds that the Fed owned (1), while simultaneously loaning new money supply to the largest banks. The big banks then buy up defaulted private sector assets at pennies on the dollar. The Fed is forced to do this, because it must prevent a precipitious drop in the government bond yields, else the 25 year secular trend of declining yields could be reversed. As I explained above, once that secular trend is reversed, there is stampede out of government bonds due to spiraling capital gains losses. The Fed has been forced by the public into a more centrally managed economy. The public caused this by selling private debt and buying more govenment debt.

Usury Leads to Socialism
I have thus explained that saving (and borrowing) with interest forces society towards centrally managed economies, i.e. socialism.

The US Federal Reserve came into existence, because of increasing saving (and borrowing) with interest in the 1800s, thus creating an increasing demand for a fiat economy. The Fed is what society has demanded with it's desire to use interest rates as means of false "productivity" and "prosperity". Society refuses to invest and reap a return on it's investment, then spending from that return on investment. This is because people want to enjoy without risk. I have proved that there is no such thing as a guaranteed rate of return (i.e. interest rates), rather only a guaranteed socialism. Thus society demands socialism. I wish society would stop blaming the Fed, and look in the mirror. Maybe then we could make progress towards real capitalism, where one reaps (harvests) what they sow (invest).

The astute reader will realize that I have just explained why hyperinflation is unavoidable.

Saving versus Borrowing
Society that borrows to consume will eventually get rising long-term interest rates, due to the insatiable addiction of the society to that excessive consumption. Addictions are only broken with rising (or even infinite, i.e. illiquidity) interest rates. Borrowing addictions (dependence) are induced by low interest rates, when there is excessive saving with interest. From 1982 forward, the developing world increasing saved in western bonds, and the west became increasing indebted by the "free" drug. Deflation and falling interest rates can return when rising interest rates have choked off borrowing and consumption. Society can move directly to deflation, e.g. Japan, if usury saving is excessive without sufficient consumption feedback loop. In Japan's case, the bubble was due to big banks buying real estate with the excessive usury savings of it's patrons. Japan has insufficient human and natural resources to be a low cost exporter. In China's case, the usury savings is borrowed for capital infrastructure and by westerners for consumption, which feeds back to China's income from exports. China is attempting to diversify the players in this feedback loop (e.g. big, centrally managed infrastructure loans, to other developing countries, not diverse risk investment by liberating the yuan exchange rate and capital flows for all it's citizens), but the income and debt saturation levels are orders-of-magnitude too low in the developing countries to offset the high-level western consumption. And China's popular usury saving rate is very high. Thus deflation is on the horizon for China, similar to USA in early 1900s, when the western consumption is finally suffocated by higher interest rates and/or Weimer-style hyperinflation. Interest rates are determined by the balance between production and consumption in an economy. Optimum balance is obtained via investment and risk. Capitalism requires many diverse successes and failures in order to avoid large/long trend misallocation. The guaranteed "return" of usury savings and borrowing is antithetical to natural functioning of a free market with success and failure, and instead creates long trend booms and busts, with each boom/bust cycle increasing the government's share of the economy. Thus, usury equals socialism.

Footnote (1): the following link explains that the Fed has been selling government bonds:http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north568.html

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=119&a=3701

A Weak Dollar Is Bad For America

Carl Delfeld, Chartwell Advisor 10.17.07, 10:09 AM ET

Martin Feldstein, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, wrote an article for the Financial Times this week, which outlines why he believes that a more "competitive" or weaker U.S. dollar is good for America.

Even though I am a rock-ribbed Reagan Republican, I cannot overstate how strongly I believe that this opinion is incorrect. "Strong Dollar, Strong Currency" is more than a mantra for me since economic history indicates that no country has ever achieved greatness nor maintained it by debasing its currency.
Here is my case for why a weaker dollar hurts America.

First, a weaker dollar translates into a cut in the real spending power of American consumers--in effect, a reduction in real income.

Second, a weaker dollar weakens the role of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. Why should investors and central banks around the world invest in US assets when their value is steadily declining?

Third, the chances of a weaker dollar leading to a sharp reduction in America's trade deficit is highly unlikely since 40% of the current balance is due to oil imports that are denominated in U.S. dollars. An additional 20% is due to trade with China, which is, of course, controlling the value of its own currency.

Fourth, a weaker dollar is inflationary since it increases the cost of imports.

Fifth, business leaders know that discounting prices may bump near-term revenue and profits but at a real cost to long-term profitability, not to mention inflicting damage to the brand name. This is what we are doing to the brand of America by trying to increase exports by lowering their price in the global marketplace. Better to stand firm on price and sell into global markets on the basis of what is great about American products: superior quality, innovation and service.

Sixth, investors seem to like a weaker dollar since the profits of American multinationals get a boost from foreign earnings being translated into U.S. dollars. Again this is short-term thinking and vastly overstated since most multinationals have sophisticated treasury departments that hedge currency exposures.

What a weaker dollar really does is to encourage American and international investors to invest in non-American markets. The more the dollar drops, the more global equities rise. Many Asian currencies are hitting record highs against the U.S. dollar.

The Australian dollar has climbed to a 25-year highs, while the Singapore dollar has touched 10-year highs. The Brazilian real, which has jumped 18% in value against the U.S. dollar this year, and the Indian rupee's sharp appreciation against the U.S. dollar during the past year, have supercharged U.S. dollar investors' returns in those markets.

According to EPFR Global, investors are pouring money into global funds--with net inflows of $96.94 billion into world equity funds so far in 2007, while taking out $9.6 billion out of U.S. equity funds. Brazil's local stock exchange, the Bovespa, reported that investors have injected $1.2 billion into the market in September alone.

Foreign investors slashed their holdings of U.S. securities by a record amount as the credit squeeze intensified, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. The Treasury said net sales of U.S. market assets--including bonds, notes and equities--were $69.3 billion in August after a revised inflow of $19.5 billion during July. The August outflow exceeded the previous record decline of $21.2 billion in March 1990.
Last and perhaps most importantly, I view a policy of weakening the U.S. dollar to improve America's competitive position as the path of least resistance.

Let's not roll up our sleeves and cut federal spending, greatly simplify our tax code to encourage productivity and achievement or reduce corporate tax rates and excessive regulation. Let's just wink and weaken and let our nation's currency drift lower on automatic pilot.

My view is that the value of a nation's currency reflects the perceived value of country in the global marketplace. Maintaining and strengthening the value of our nation's currency is in the best interest of American consumers, businesses and investors.

http://www.forbes.com/home/personalfinance/2007/10/17/dollar-currency-feldstein-pf-etf-in_cd_1017etfbriefing_inl.html

Why Real Estate is a Consumer Item, Not an Investment

Posted by Bill Bonner on Oct 26th, 2007


We keep saying: housing is not an investment; it’s a consumer item. Here comes an old friend with new evidence:

“The idea that housing doesn’t go down turns on its head when you actually calculate in the real-world costs of interest, taxes, insurance, etc. For instance, before those costs are counted, it looks like 16 out of the 17 top real estate markets in the 1990s were in the black. Once you add them in, however, it turns out that not one of the top property markets went up. They were all negative.

“In the 2000s, up to May 2007, you get something similar…three markets that, in unrealistic terms supposedly shot up 18%, 33%, and 36% during that period, are all actually net losers…down 10.5%, 13.4%, and 28.2%. As in negative. The gains were phantom stats from the fantasy world of no-cost property ownership.

“Running through the rest of the list, the other major markets did still make money. But instead of the astounding triple-digit gains property owners love to point to as proof that this bubble was the real deal, you find out that only two of the markets – net of costs – actually crossed the 100%-gain mark (instead of 10 markets). And annualised, only two markets were even a little above 10% gains in property values.

“Not bad, but not a miracle by any stretch.

“Two more of those top markets just barely squeaked past the annualised 8.5% gains in the S&P 500 for the same period. All the rest of the top 17 markets looked at in this article did worse than the S&P. During what was supposed to be the biggest property boom of all time.

“Again, this isn’t to say there wasn’t a bubble. Just that it truly was an event completely devoid of sanity.”

Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning Australia

P.S. to get The Daily Reckoning direct to your inbox sign up to our free e-mail newsletter or if you prefer to use RSS, subscribe to the Daily Reckoning RSS feed.

Related Posts:


Barn Fund-Raising, or Will Baby Boomers Make Saving Trendy Again?
Australian Investors Mistakenly Buying American Real Estate
Poverty, Pubs Better for Ireland Than Real Estate Boom
US Housing Market: Median Prices Will Fall
Boy, can you get stucco in real estate investments


http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/real-estate-a-consumer-item/2007/10/26/

Why the Euro is Garbage and Only Gold is Absolute

Posted by Dan Denning on Nov 16th, 2007


How about the gold market? Nature’s currency, gold, fell over US$27 in New York trading and is back under US$800 at US$787.30. Uh oh. What gives?

Another point we made last night is to underscore the fundamental structural change in the currency markets. The US dollar has fallen…and it cannot get up. There will be rallies. But even if the dollar rallies against the euro, so what?

The euro is also garbage, we pointed out. It’s simply another currency not backed by anything tangible. It’s risen by virtue of the fact that it is not the US dollar. But it too, is un-backed paper liability. And it’s not even backed by a real country! It’s backed by 12 member nations whose various economic fortunes may one day force them to abandon the common currency in order to set interest rates that are more appropriate than those set in Brussels. Europe has a North-South divide.

But back to gold. In a world of paper money relativity, gold is a physical absolute. That is why people have been treating it as money for thousands of years. That alone makes it compelling. But as we said, the bear market in the US dollar is a terminal bear market.

The US government will either have to greatly devalue the currency to pay off its debts, or default on those debts. Neither is good for confidence in the currency. In the meantime, things priced in dollars (commodities) will continue to go up as the supply of dollars increases faster than the supply of tangible goods.

Dan Denning
The Daily Reckoning Australia

P.S. to get The Daily Reckoning direct to your inbox sign up to our free e-mail newsletter or if you prefer to use RSS, subscribe to the Daily Reckoning RSS feed.

Related Posts:


Gold Closes In On 6
Russia Benefits From Exposure To Euro and Gold in US Dollar Exodus
Dow Jones Dives Again, US Dollar Keeps Rising
Central Banks to Support US Dollar by Selling Gold
Interest Rate Cuts and Higher Gold Price a Matter of Time

Jim Rogers Urges People to Sell U.S. Dollar Holdings (Update1)

By Aaron Pan and Paul Gordon

Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Investor Jim Rogers urged people to get out of the dollar and says he expects to be rid of all his U.S. currency assets by summer next year.

``If you have dollars, I urge you to get out,'' Rogers said in an interview from Singapore. He is chairman of New York-based Rogers Holdings, formerly known as Beeland Interests Inc. ``That's not a currency to own.''

The dollar fell 9.5 percent this year against a basket of six major currencies as a housing slump slowed the economy and losses stemming from subprime mortgage defaults spread among U.S. banks. Rogers, who said last month he was shifting out of all his dollar assets, plans to buy commodities, Japan's yen, the Chinese yuan and the Swiss franc.

Interest rate futures traded on the Chicago Board of Trade show a 72 percent chance that the central bank will lower its target rate for overnight loans between banks to 4.25 percent on Dec. 11, its third reduction this year.

Rogers, who predicted the start of the global commodities rally in 1999, criticized Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke for comments on the currency before a congressional committee on Nov. 8.

``He is a total fool,'' Rogers said. ``He said Americans who buy only American goods are not affected if the value of the U.S. dollar goes down. I was terrified.''

Bernanke said the only effect of a weaker dollar on a typical American with their wealth in dollars, buying consumer goods in dollars, would be ``their buying powers, it makes imported goods more expensive.''

Rogers said that's not right.

``If you only buy American products and the dollar goes down, the price of oil goes up, copper goes up, wheat goes up,'' he said. ``That affects you. He doesn't understand the economy as far as I can see.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Aaron Pan in Hong Kong at Apan8@bloomberg.net .

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601083&sid=aXH9wCx1oydw&refer=currency

Report Puts Hidden War Costs at $1.6T

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
Tue Nov 13, 6:21 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion — roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

ADVERTISEMENT

The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.

The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would cost a family of four $16,500, the report said.

Future economic costs would be even greater. The report estimated that both wars would cost $3.5 trillion between 2003 and 2017. Under that scenario, it would cost a family of four $46,400, the report said.

The report, from the committee's Democratic majority, was not vetted with Republican members. Democratic leaders in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., seized on the report to criticize Bush's war strategy. The White House countered that the report was politically motivated.

"This report was put out by Democrats on Capitol Hill. This committee is known for being partisan and political. They did not consult or cooperate with the Republicans on the committee. And so I think it is an attempt to muddy the waters on what has been some positive developments being reported out of Iraq," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "I haven't seen the report, but it's obvious the motivations behind it."

The report comes as the House and Senate planned to vote this week on another effort by Democrats to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq as a condition for providing another $50 billion for the war.

Reid said the report "is another reminder of how President Bush's stubborn refusal to change course in Iraq and congressional Republicans' willingness to rubber stamp his failed strategy — has real consequences at home for all Americans."

Perino, while acknowledging the dangers in Iraq, defended Bush's stance.

"Obviously it remains a dangerous situation in Iraq. But the reduction in violence, the increased economic capacity of the country, as well as, hopefully, some continued political reconciliation that is moving from the bottom up, is a positive trend and one that we — well, it's positive and we hope it is a trend that will take hold," Perino said.

Israel Klein, spokesman for the Joint Economic Committee, took issue with the White House's characterization of the panel's report.

"Instead of dealing with the substance of this report, the White House is once again trying to deflect attention away from the blistering costs of this war in Iraq," Klein said. "This report uses the nonpartisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office) budget estimates and was prepared by the JEC's professional economists using the same process this committee has always used, regardless of which party is in the majority."

However, the committee's top-ranking Republican members — Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rep. Jim Saxton of New Jersey — called on the Democratic leadership to "withdraw this defective report." A joint statement from the two Republican lawmakers said the report is a "thinly veiled exercise in political hyperbole masquerading as academic research."

White House Budget Director Jim Nussle accused Democrats of "trying to distort reality for political gain."

Oil prices have surged since the start of the war, from about $37 a barrel to well over $90 a barrel in recent weeks, the report said. "Consistent disruptions from the war have affected oil prices," although the Iraq war is not responsible for all of the increase in oil prices, the report said.

Still, the report estimated that high oil prices have hit U.S. consumers in the pocket, transferring "approximately $124 billion from U.S. oil consumers to foreign (oil) producers" from 2003 to 2008, the report said.

High oil prices can slow overall economic growth if that chills spending and investment by consumers and businesses. At the same time, high oil prices can spread inflation throughout the economy if companies decide to boost the prices of many other goods and services.

Meanwhile, "the sum of interest paid on Iraq-related debt from 2003 to 2017 will total over $550 billion," the report said. The government has to make interest payments on the money it borrows to finance the national debt, which recently hit $9 trillion for the first time.

The report was obtained by The Associated Press before its release. An earlier draft of the report, which also had been obtained by The AP, had put the economic cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars slightly lower, at $1.5 trillion.

"What this report makes crystal clear," said Joint Economic Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., "is that the cost to our country in lives lost and dollars spent is tragically unacceptable." Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., the panel's vice chair, said of the Iraq war: "By every measure, this war has cost Americans far too much."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071113/ap_on_go_co/war_costs