EVE'S LEGACY ?

EVE'S LEGACY ?
WOMEN IN ISLAM VERSUS WOMEN IN THE JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN TR
Posted by: "salina salha" guidance4allofyou@yahoo.com


The image of Eve as temptress in the Bible has resulted in an extremely negative impact on women throughout the Judaeo-Christian tradition. All women were believed to have inherited from their mother, the Biblical Eve, both her guilt and her guile. Consequently, they were all untrustworthy, morally inferior, and wicked. Menstruation, pregnancy, and childbearing were considered the just punishment for the eternal guilt of the cursed female sex. In order to appreciate how negative the impact of the Biblical Eve was on all her female descendants we have to look at the writings of some of the most important Jews and Christians of all time. Let us start with the Old Testament and look at excerpts from what is called the Wisdom Literature in which we find:

"I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare....while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all" (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28).

In another part of the Hebrew literature which is found in the Catholic Bible we read:
"No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman.....Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24).

Jewish Rabbis listed nine curses inflicted on women as a result of the Fall:

"To the woman He gave nine curses and death: the burden of the blood of menstruation and the blood of virginity; the burden of pregnancy; the burden of childbirth; the burden of bringing up the children; her head is covered as one in mourning; she pierces her ear like a permanent slave or slave girl who serves her master; she is not to be believed as a witness; and after everything-- death."


To the present day, orthodox Jewish men in their daily morning prayer recite "Blessed be God King of the universe that Thou has not made me a woman." The women, on the other hand, thank God every morning for "making me according to Thy will." 3 Another prayer found in many Jewish prayer books: "Praised be God that he has not created me a gentile. Praised be God that he has not created me a woman. Praised be God that he has not created me an ignoramus."


The Biblical Eve has played a far bigger role in Christianity than in Judaism. Her sin has been pivotal to the whole Christian faith because the Christian conception of the reason for the mission of Jesus Christ on Earth stems from Eve's disobedience to God. She had sinned and then seduced Adam to follow her suit. Consequently, God expelled both of them from Heaven to Earth, which had been cursed because of them. They bequeathed their sin, which had not been forgiven by God, to all their descendants and, thus, all humans are born in sin. In order to purify human beings from their 'original sin', God had to sacrifice Jesus, who is considered to be the Son of God, on the cross. Therefore, Eve is responsible for her own mistake, her husband's sin, the original sin of all humanity, and the death of the Son of God. In other words, one woman acting on her own caused the fall of humanity. 5 What about her daughters? They are sinners like her and have to be
treated as such. Listen to the severe tone of St. Paul in the New Testament:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (I Timothy 2:11-14).

St. Tertullian was even more blunt than St. Paul, while he was talking to his 'best beloved sisters' in the faith, he said: 6

"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die."
St. Augustine was faithful to the legacy of his predecessors, he wrote to a friend:

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

Centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas still considered women as defective:

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence."

Finally, the renowned reformer Martin Luther could not see any benefit from a woman but bringing into the world as many children as possible regardless of any side effects:
"If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there"

Again and again all women are denigrated because of the image of Eve the temptress, thanks to the Genesis account. To sum up, the Judaeo-Christian conception of women has been poisoned by the belief in the sinful nature of Eve and her female offspring.
If we now turn our attention to what the Quran has to say about women, we will soon realize that the Islamic conception of women is radically different from the Judaeo-Christian one. Let the Quran speak for itself:

"For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise-- For them all has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward" (33:35).

"The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil, they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His Mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise" (9:71).

"And their Lord answered them: Truly I will never cause to be lost the work of any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members one of another" (3:195).

"Whoever works evil will not be requited but by the like thereof, and whoever works a righteous deed -whether man or woman- and is a believer- such will enter the Garden of bliss" (40:40).

"Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily to him/her we will give a new life that is good and pure, and we will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions" (16:97).

It is clear that the Quranic view of women is no different than that of men. They, both, are God's creatures whose sublime goal on earth is to worship their Lord, do righteous deeds, and avoid evil and they, both, will be assessed accordingly. The Quran never mentions that the woman is the devil's gateway or that she is a deceiver by nature. The Quran, also, never mentions that man is God's image; all men and all women are his creatures, that is all. According to the Quran, a woman's role on earth is not limited only to childbirth. She is required to do as many good deeds as any other man is required to do. The Quran never says that no upright women have ever existed. To the contrary, the Quran has instructed all the believers, women as well as men, to follow the example of those ideal women such as the Virgin Mary and the Pharoah's wife:

"And Allah sets forth, As an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: 'O my lord build for me, in nearness to you, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings and save me from those who do wrong.' And Mary the daughter of Imran who guarded her chastity and We breathed into her body of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations and was one of the devout" (66:11-13).

SHAMEFUL DAUGHTERS-2 ?

SHAMEFUL DAUGHTERS-2 ?
Posted by: "salina salha" guidance4allofyou@yahoo.com


In fact, the difference between the Biblical and the Quranic attitude towards the female sex starts as soon as a female is born. For example, the Bible states that the period of the mother's ritual impurity is twice as long if a girl is born than if a boy is (Lev. 12:2-5). The Catholic Bible states explicitly that:

"The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3).

In contrast to this shocking statement, boys receive special praise:

"A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy." (Ecclesiasticus 30:3)

Jewish Rabbis made it an obligation on Jewish men to produce offspring in order to propagate the race. At the same time, they did not hide their clear preference for male children : "It is well for those whose children are male but ill for those whose are female", "At the birth of a boy, all are joyful...at the birth of a girl all are sorrowful", and "When a boy comes into the world, peace comes into the world... When a girl comes, nothing comes."7
A daughter is considered a painful burden, a potential source of shame to her father:
"Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she does not make you the laughing stock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame" (Ecclesiasticus 42:11).

"Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you" (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11).

It was this very same idea of treating daughters as sources of shame that led the pagan Arabs, before the advent of Islam, to practice female infanticide. The Quran severely condemned this heinous practice:

"When news is brought to one of them of the birth of a female child, his face darkens and he is filled with inward grief. With shame does he hide himself from his people because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on contempt or bury her in the dust? Ah! what an evil they decide on?" (16:59).

It has to be mentioned that this sinister crime would have never stopped in Arabia were it not for the power of the scathing terms the Quran used to condemn this practice (16:59, 43:17, 81:8-9). The Quran, moreover, makes no distinction between boys and girls. In contrast to the Bible, the Quran considers the birth of a female as a gift and a blessing from God, the same as the birth of a male. The Quran even mentions the gift of the female birth first:
" To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills and bestows male children to whomever He wills" (42:49).

In order to wipe out all the traces of female infanticide in the nascent Muslim society, Prophet Muhammad promised those who were blessed with daughters of a great reward if they would bring them up kindly:

"He who is involved in bringing up daughters, and accords benevolent treatment towards them, they will be protection for him against Hell-Fire" (Bukhari and Muslim).
"Whoever maintains two girls till they attain maturity, he and I will come on the Resurrection Day like this; and he joined his fingers" (Muslim).
" DON'T DARE TO BE DIFFERENT JUST DARE TO BE YOURSELF !!"

SHAMEFUL DAUGHTERS ?

SHAMEFUL DAUGHTERS ?
Posted by: "salina salha" guidance4allofyou@yahoo.com



The difference between the Biblical and the Quranic conceptions of women is not limited to the newly born female, it extends far beyond that. Let us compare their attitudes towards a female trying to learn her religion. The heart of Judaism is the Torah, the law. However, according to the Talmud, "women are exempt from the study of the Torah." Some Jewish Rabbis firmly declared "Let the words of Torah rather be destroyed by fire than imparted to women", and "Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is as though he taught her obscenity"8
The attitude of St. Paul in the New Testament is not brighter:


"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)


How can a woman learn if she is not allowed to speak? How can a woman grow intellectually if she is obliged to be in a state of full submission? How can she broaden her horizons if her one and only source of information is her husband at home?


Now, to be fair, we should ask: is the Quranic position any different? One short story narrated in the Quran sums its position up concisely. Khawlah was a Muslim woman whose husband Aws pronounced this statement at a moment of anger: "You are to me as the back of my mother." This was held by pagan Arabs to be a statement of divorce which freed the husband from any conjugal responsibility but did not leave the wife free to leave the husband's home or to marry another man. Having heard these words from her husband, Khawlah was in a miserable situation. She went straight to the Prophet of Islam to plead her case. The Prophet was of the opinion that she should be patient since there seemed to be no way out. Khawla kept arguing with the Prophet in an attempt to save her suspended marriage. Shortly, the Quran intervened; Khawla's plea was accepted. The divine verdict abolished this iniquitous custom. One full chapter (Chapter 58) of the Quran whose title is
"Almujadilah" or "The woman who is arguing" was named after this incident:

"Allah has heard and accepted the statement of the woman who pleads with you (the Prophet) concerning her husband and carries her complaint to Allah, and Allah hears the arguments between both of you for Allah hears and sees all things...." (58:1).

A woman in the Quranic conception has the right to argue even with the Prophet of Islam himself. No one has the right to instruct her to be silent. She is under no obligation to consider her husband the one and only reference in matters of law and religion.

UNCLEAN IMPURE WOMAN ?

UNCLEAN IMPURE WOMAN ?
Posted by: "salina salha" guidance4allofyou@yahoo.com



Jewish laws and regulations concerning menstruating women are extremely restrictive. The Old Testament considers any menstruating woman as unclean and impure. Moreover, her impurity "infects" others as well. Anyone or anything she touches becomes unclean for a day:

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening" (Lev. 15:19-23).
Due to her "contaminating" nature, a menstruating woman was sometimes "banished" in order to avoid any possibility of any contact with her. She was sent to a special house called "the house of uncleanness" for the whole period of her impurity. 9 The Talmud considers a menstruating woman "fatal" even without any physical contact:
"Our Rabbis taught:....if a menstruant woman passes between two (men), if it is at the beginning of her menses she will slay one of them, and if it is at the end of her menses she will cause strife between them" (bPes. 111a.)

Furthermore, the husband of a menstruous woman was forbidden to enter the synagogue if he had been made unclean by her even by the dust under her feet. A priest whose wife, daughter, or mother was menstruating could not recite priestly blessing in the synagogue. 10 No wonder many Jewish women still refer to menstruation as "the curse."


Islam does not consider a menstruating woman to possess any kind of "contagious uncleanness" . She is neither "untouchable" nor "cursed." She practises her normal life with only one restriction: A married couple are not allowed to have sexual intercourse during the period of menstruation. Any other physical contact between them is permissible. A menstruating woman is exempted from some rituals such as daily prayers and fasting during her period.

BEARING WITNESS

BEARING WITNESS
Posted by: "salina salha" guidance4allofyou@yahoo.com



Another issue in which the Quran and the Bible disagree is the issue of women bearing witness. It is true that the Quran has instructed the believers dealing in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two females (2:282). However, it is also true that the Quran in other situations accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. In fact the woman's testimony can even invalidate the man's. If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he is required by the Quran to solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife's guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty and in either case the marriage is dissolved (24:6-11).


On the other hand, women were not allowed to bear witness in early Jewish society.


The Rabbis counted women's not being able to bear witness among the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall (see the "Eve's Legacy" section). Women in today's Israel are not allowed to give evidence in Rabbinical courts. 13 The Rabbis justify why women cannot bear witness by citing Genesis 18:9-16, where it is stated that Sara, Abraham's wife had lied. The Rabbis use this incident as evidence that women are unqualified to bear witness. It should be noted here that this story narrated in Genesis 18:9-16 has been mentioned more than once in the Quran without any hint of any lies by Sara (11:69-74, 51:24-30). In the Christian West, both ecclesiastical and civil law debarred women from giving testimony until late last century.


If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, her testimony will not be considered at all according to the Bible. The accused wife has to be subjected to a trial by ordeal. In this trial, the wife faces a complex and humiliating ritual which was supposed to prove her guilt or innocence (Num. 5:11-31). If she is found guilty after this ordeal, she will be sentenced to death. If she is found not guilty, her husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing.
Besides, if a man takes a woman as a wife and then accuses her of not being a virgin, her own testimony will not count. Her parents had to bring evidence of her virginity before the elders of the town. If the parents could not prove the innocence of their daughter, she would be stoned to death on her father's doorsteps. If the parents were able to prove her innocence, the husband would only be fined one hundred shekels of silver and he could not divorce his wife as long as he lived:


"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said I did not find your daughter to be a virgin. But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be
found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of the town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

ADULTERY

ADULTERY
"salina salha" guidance4allofyou@yahoo.com


Adultery is considered a sin in all religions. The Bible decrees the death sentence for both the adulterer and the adulteress (Lev. 20:10). Islam also equally punishes both the adulterer and the adulteress (24:2). However, the Quranic definition of adultery is very different from the Biblical definition. Adultery, according to the Quran, is the involvement of a married man or a married woman in an extramarital affair. The Bible only considers the extramarital affair of a married woman as adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22, Proverbs 6:20-7:27).
"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel" (Deut. 22:22).

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death" (Lev. 20:10).

According to the Biblical definition, if a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman, this is not considered a crime at all. The married man who has extramarital affairs with unmarried women is not an adulterer and the unmarried women involved with him are not adulteresses. The crime of adultery is committed only when a man, whether married or single, sleeps with a married woman. In this case the man is considered adulterer, even if he is not married, and the woman is considered adulteress. In short, adultery is any illicit sexual intercourse involving a married woman. The extramarital affair of a married man is not per se a crime in the Bible. Why is the dual moral standard? According to Encyclopaedia Judaica, the wife was considered to be the husband's possession and adultery constituted a violation of the husband's exclusive right to her; the wife as the husband's possession had no such right to him. 15 That is, if a man had sexual intercourse with a
married woman, he would be violating the property of another man and, thus, he should be punished.

To the present day in Israel, if a married man indulges in an extramarital affair with an unmarried woman, his children by that woman are considered legitimate. But, if a married woman has an affair with another man, whether married or not married, her children by that man are not only illegitimate but they are considered bastards and are forbidden to marry any other Jews except converts and other bastards. This ban is handed down to the children's descendants for 10 generations until the taint of adultery is presumably weakened.

The Quran, on the other hand, never considers any woman to be the possession of any man. The Quran eloquently describes the relationship between the spouses by saying:
" And among His signs is that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquillity with them and He has put love and mercy between your hearts: verily in that are signs for those who reflect" (30:21).

This is the Quranic conception of marriage: love, mercy, and tranquillity, not possession and double standards.

VOWS

VOWS
"salina salha" guidance4allofyou@yahoo.com


According to the Bible, a man must fulfil any vows he might make to God. He must not break his word. On the other hand, a woman's vow is not necessarily binding on her. It has to be approved by her father, if she is living in his house, or by her husband, if she is married. If a father/husband does not endorse his daughter's/wife' s vows, all pledges made by her become null and void:


"But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand ....Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself" (Num. 30:2-15)


Why is it that a woman's word is not binding per se ? The answer is simple: because she is owned by her father, before marriage, or by her husband after marriage. The father's control over his daughter was absolute to the extent that, should he wish, he could sell her! It is indicated in the writings of the Rabbis that: "The man may sell his daughter, but the woman may not sell her daughter; the man may betroth his daughter, but the woman may not betroth her daughter." 17 The Rabbinic literature also indicates that marriage represents the transfer of control from the father to the husband: "betrothal, making a woman the sacrosanct possession-- the inviolable property-- of the husband..." Obviously, if the woman is considered to be the property of someone else, she cannot make any pledges that her owner does not approve of.


It is of interest to note that this Biblical instruction concerning women's vows has had negative repercussions on Judaeo-Christian women till early in this century. A married woman in the Western world had no legal status. No act of hers was of any legal value. Her husband could repudiate any contract, bargain, or deal she had made. Women in the West (the largest heir of the Judaeo-Christian legacy) were held unable to make a binding contract because they were practically owned by someone else. Western women had suffered for almost two thousand years because of the Biblical attitude towards women's position vis-à-vis their fathers and husbands.


In Islam, the vow of every Muslim, male or female, is binding on him/her. No one has the power to repudiate the pledges of anyone else. Failure to keep a solemn oath, made by a man or a woman, has to be expiated as indicated in the Quran:

"He [God] will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; Or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths you have sworn. But keep your oaths" (5:89).

Companions of the Prophet Muhammad, men and women, used to present their oath of allegiance to him personally. Women, as well as men, would independently come to him and pledge their oaths:

"O Prophet, When believing women come to you to make a covenant with you that they will not associate in worship anything with God, nor steal, nor fornicate, nor kill their own children, nor slander anyone, nor disobey you in any just matter, then make a covenant with them and pray to God for the forgiveness of their sins. Indeed God is Forgiving and most Merciful" (60:12).

A man could not swear the oath on behalf of his daughter or his wife. Nor could a man repudiate the oath made by any of his female relatives.

WIFE'S PROPERTY ?

WIFE'S PROPERTY ?
"salina salha" guidance4allofyou@yahoo.com


The three religions share an unshakeable belief in the importance of marriage and family life. They also agree on the leadership of the husband over the family. Nevertheless, blatant differences do exist among the three religions with respect to the limits of this leadership. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, unlike Islam, virtually extends the leadership of the husband into ownership of his wife.


The Jewish tradition regarding the husband's role towards his wife stems from the conception that he owns her as he owns his slave.

This conception has been the reason behind the double standard in the laws of adultery and behind the husband's ability to annul his wife's vows. This conception has also been responsible for denying the wife any control over her property or her earnings. As soon as a Jewish woman got married, she completely lost any control over her property and earnings to her husband. Jewish Rabbis asserted the husband's right to his wife's property as a corollary of his possession of her: "Since one has come into the possession of the woman does it not follow that he should come into the possession of her property too?", and "Since he has acquired the woman should he not acquire also her property?"

Thus, marriage caused the richest woman to become practically penniless. The Talmud describes the financial situation of a wife as follows:

"How can a woman have anything; whatever is hers belongs to her husband? What is his is his and what is hers is also his...... Her earnings and what she may find in the streets are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband..." (San. 71a, Git. 62a)


The fact of the matter is that the property of a Jewish female was meant to attract suitors. A Jewish family would assign their daughter a share of her father's estate to be used as a dowry in case of marriage. It was this dowry that made Jewish daughters an unwelcome burden to their fathers. The father had to raise his daughter for years and then prepare for her marriage by providing a large dowry. Thus, a girl in a Jewish family was a liability and no asset.

This liability explains why the birth of a daughter was not celebrated with joy in the old Jewish society (see the "Shameful Daughters?" section). The dowry was the wedding gift presented to the groom under terms of tenancy. The husband would act as the practical owner of the dowry but he could not sell it. The bride would lose any control over the dowry at the moment of marriage. Moreover, she was expected to work after marriage and all her earnings had to go to her husband in return for her maintenance which was his obligation. She could regain her property only in two cases: divorce or her husband's death. Should she die first, he would inherit her property. In the case of the husband's death, the wife could regain her pre-marital property but she was not entitled to inherit any share in her deceased husband's own property. It has to be added that the groom also had to present a marriage gift to his bride, yet again he was the practical owner of
this gift as long as they were married.


Christianity, until recently, has followed the same Jewish tradition. Both religious and civil authorities in the Christian Roman Empire (after Constantine) required a property agreement as a condition for recognizing the marriage. Families offered their daughters increasing dowries and, as a result, men tended to marry earlier while families postponed their daughters' marriages until later than had been customary.

Under Canon law, a wife was entitled to restitution of her dowry if the marriage was annulled unless she was guilty of adultery. In this case, she forfeited her right to the dowry which remained in her husband's hands.


Under Canon and civil law a married woman in Christian Europe and America had lost her property rights until late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, women's rights under English law were compiled and published in 1632. These 'rights' included: "That which the husband hath is his own. That which the wife hath is the husband's."

The wife not only lost her property upon marriage, she lost her personality as well. No act of her was of legal value. Her husband could repudiate any sale or gift made by her as being of no binding legal value. The person with whom she had any contract was held as a criminal for participating in a fraud. Moreover, she could not sue or be sued in her own name, nor could she sue her own husband.


A married woman was practically treated as an infant in the eyes of the law. The wife simply belonged to her husband and therefore she lost her property, her legal personality, and her family name.


Islam, since the seventh century C.E., has granted married women the independent personality which the Judaeo-Christian West had deprived them until very recently. In Islam, the bride and her family are under no obligation whatsoever to present a gift to the groom. The girl in a Muslim family is no liability. A woman is so dignified by Islam that she does not need to present gifts in order to attract potential husbands. It is the groom who must present the bride with a marriage gift. This gift is considered her property and neither the groom nor the bride's family have any share in or control over it. In some Muslim societies today, a marriage gift of a hundred thousand dollars in diamonds is not unusual.


The bride retains her marriage gifts even if she is later divorced. The husband is not allowed any share in his wife's property except what she offers him with her free consent.


The Quran has stated its position on this issue quite clearly:

"And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, Of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer" (4:4)
The wife's property and earnings are under her full control and for her use alone since her, and the children's, maintenance is her husband's responsibility.


No matter how rich the wife might be, she is not obliged to act as a co-provider for the family unless she herself voluntarily chooses to do so. Spouses do inherit from one another. Moreover, a married woman in Islam retains her independent legal personality and her family name.

An American judge once commented on the rights of Muslim women saying: " A Muslim girl may marry ten times, but her individuality is not absorbed by that of her various husbands. She is a solar planet with a name and legal personality of her own."

DIVORCE

DIVORCE
"salina salha" guidance4allofyou@yahoo.com


The three religions have remarkable differences in their attitudes towards divorce. Christianity abhors divorce altogether. The New Testament unequivocally advocates the indissolubility of marriage. It is attributed to Jesus to have said, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). This uncompromising ideal is, without a doubt, unrealistic. It assumes a state of moral perfection that human societies have never achieved. When a couple realizes that their married life is beyond repair, a ban on divorce will not do them any good. Forcing ill-mated couples to remain together against their wills is neither effective nor reasonable. No wonder the whole Christian world has been obliged to sanction divorce.


Judaism, on the other hand, allows divorce even without any cause. The Old Testament gives the husband the right to divorce his wife even if he just dislikes her:


"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled" (Deut. 24:1-4).


The above verses have caused some considerable debate among Jewish scholars because of their disagreement over the interpretation of the words "displeasing" , "indecency", and "dislikes" mentioned in the verses. The Talmud records their different opinions:
"The school of Shammai held that a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some sexual misconduct, while the school of Hillel say he may divorce her even if she has merely spoiled a dish for him. Rabbi Akiba says he may divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she" (Gittin 90a-b).


The New Testament follows the Shammaites opinion while Jewish law has followed the opinion of the Hillelites and R. Akiba. 33 Since the Hillelites view prevailed, it became the unbroken tradition of Jewish law to give the husband freedom to divorce his wife without any cause at all. The Old Testament not only gives the husband the right to divorce his "displeasing" wife, it considers divorcing a "bad wife" an obligation:


"A bad wife brings humiliation, downcast looks, and a wounded heart. Slack of hand and weak of knee is the man whose wife fails to make him happy. Woman is the origin of sin, and it is through her that we all die. Do not leave a leaky cistern to drip or allow a bad wife to say what she likes. If she does not accept your control, divorce her and send her away" (Ecclesiasticus 25:25).


The Talmud has recorded several specific actions by wives which obliged their husbands to divorce them: "If she ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled in the street, in every case Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband" (Git. 89a). The Talmud has also made it mandatory to divorce a barren wife (who bore no children in a period of ten years): "Our Rabbis taught: If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he shall divorce her" (Yeb. 64a).



Wives, on the other hand, cannot initiate divorce under Jewish law. A Jewish wife, however, could claim the right to a divorce before a Jewish court provided that a strong reason exists. Very few grounds are provided for the wife to make a claim for a divorce. These grounds include: A husband with physical defects or skin disease, a husband not fulfilling his conjugal responsibilities, etc. The Court might support the wife's claim to a divorce but it cannot dissolve the marriage. Only the husband can dissolve the marriage by giving his wife a bill of divorce. The Court could scourge, fine, imprison, and excommunicate him to force him to deliver the necessary bill of divorce to his wife. However, if the husband is stubborn enough, he can refuse to grant his wife a divorce and keep her tied to him indefinitely. Worse still, he can desert her without granting her a divorce and leave her unmarried and undivorced. He can marry another woman or even live with
any single woman out of wedlock and have children from her (these children are considered legitimate under Jewish law). The deserted wife, on the other hand, cannot marry any other man since she is still legally married and she cannot live with any other man because she will be considered an adulteress and her children from this union will be illegitimate for ten generations. A woman in such a position is called an agunah (chained woman).


In the United States today there are approximately 1000 to 1500 Jewish women who are agunot (plural for agunah), while in Israel their number might be as high as 16000. Husbands may extort thousands of dollars from their trapped wives in exchange for a Jewish divorce.



Islam occupies the middle ground between Christianity and Judaism with respect to divorce. Marriage in Islam is a sanctified bond that should not be broken except for compelling reasons. Couples are instructed to pursue all possible remedies whenever their marriages are in danger. Divorce is not to be resorted to except when there is no other way out. In a nutshell, Islam recognizes divorce, yet it discourages it by all means. Let us focus on the recognition side first. Islam does recognize the right of both partners to end their matrimonial relationship. Islam gives the husband the right for Talaq (divorce). Moreover, Islam, unlike Judaism, grants the wife the right to dissolve the marriage through what is known as Khula'.

If the husband dissolves the marriage by divorcing his wife, he cannot retrieve any of the marriage gifts he has given her. The Quran explicitly prohibits the divorcing husbands from taking back their marriage gifts no matter how expensive or valuable these gifts might be:


"But if you decide to take one wife in place of another, even if you had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, take not the least bit of it back; Would you take it by slander and a manifest wrong?" (4:20).



In the case of the wife choosing to end the marriage, she may return the marriage gifts to her husband. Returning the marriage gifts in this case is a fair compensation for the husband who is keen to keep his wife while she chooses to leave him. The Quran has instructed Muslim men not to take back any of the gifts they have given to their wives except in the case of the wife choosing to dissolve the marriage:

"It is not lawful for you (Men) to take back any of your gifts except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. There is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah so do not transgress them" (2:229).

Also, a woman came to the Prophet Muhammad seeking the dissolution of her marriage, she told the Prophet that she did not have any complaints against her husband's character or manners. Her only problem was that she honestly did not like him to the extent of not being able to live with him any longer. The Prophet asked her: "Would you give him his garden (the marriage gift he had given her) back?" she said: "Yes". The Prophet then instructed the man to take back his garden and accept the dissolution of the marriage (Bukhari).

In some cases, A Muslim wife might be willing to keep her marriage but find herself obliged to claim for a divorce because of some compelling reasons such as: Cruelty of the husband, desertion without a reason, a husband not fulfilling his conjugal responsibilities, etc. In these cases the Muslim court dissolves the marriage.



In short, Islam has offered the Muslim woman some unequalled rights: she can end the marriage through Khula' and she can sue for a divorce. A Muslim wife can never become chained by a recalcitrant husband. It was these rights that enticed Jewish women who lived in the early Islamic societies of the seventh century C.E. to seek to obtain bills of divorce from their Jewish husbands in Muslim courts. The Rabbis declared these bills null and void. In order to end this practice, the Rabbis gave new rights and privileges to Jewish women in an attempt to weaken the appeal of the Muslim courts. Jewish women living in Christian countries were not offered any similar privileges since the Roman law of divorce practiced there was no more attractive than the Jewish law.


Let us now focus our attention on how Islam discourages divorce. The Prophet of Islam told the believers that:

"among all the permitted acts, divorce is the most hateful to God" (Abu Dawood).
A Muslim man should not divorce his wife just because he dislikes her. The Quran instructs Muslim men to be kind to their wives even in cases of lukewarm emotions or feelings of dislike:

"Live with them (your wives) on a footing of kindness and equity. If you dislike them it may be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed a great deal of good" (4:19).
Prophet Muhammad gave a similar instruction:

" A believing man must not hate a believing woman. If he dislikes one of her traits he will be pleased with another" (Muslim).

The Prophet has also emphasized that the best Muslims are those who are best to their wives:

"The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character and the best of you are those who are best to their wives" (Tirmidthi).

However, Islam is a practical religion and it does recognize that there are circumstances in which a marriage becomes on the verge of collapsing. In such cases, a mere advice of kindness or self restraint is no viable solution. So, what to do in order to save a marriage in these cases? The Quran offers some practical advice for the spouse (husband or wife) whose partner (wife or husband) is the wrongdoer. For the husband whose wife's ill-conduct is threatening the marriage, the Quran gives four types of advice as detailed in the following verses:

"As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, (1) Admonish them, (2) refuse to share their beds, (3) beat them; but if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance: For Allah is Most High, Great. (4) If you fear a break between them, appoint two arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers; If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation" (4:34-35).


The first three are to be tried first. If they fail, then the help of the families concerned should be sought. It has to be noted, in the light of the above verses, that beating the rebellious wife is a temporary measure that is resorted to as third in line in cases of extreme necessity in hopes that it might remedy the wrongdoing of the wife. If it does, the husband is not allowed by any means to continue any annoyance to the wife as explicitly mentioned in the verse. If it does not, the husband is still not allowed to use this measure any longer and the final avenue of the family-assisted reconciliation has to be explored.


Prophet Muhammad has instructed Muslim husbands that they should not have recourse to these measures except in extreme cases such as open lewdness committed by the wife. Even in these cases the punishment should be slight and if the wife desists, the husband is not permitted to irritate her:


"In case they are guilty of open lewdness you may leave them alone in their beds and inflict slight punishment. If they are obedient to you, do not seek against them any means of annoyance" (Tirmidthi)


Furthermore, the Prophet of Islam has condemned any unjustifiable beating. Some Muslim wives complained to him that their husbands had beaten them. Hearing that, the Prophet categorically stated that:


"Those who do so (beat their wives) are not the best among you" (Abu Dawood).
It has to be remembered at this point that the Prophet has also said:
"The best of you is he who is best to his family, and I am the best among you to my family" (Tirmidthi).

The Prophet advised one Muslim woman, whose name was Fatimah bint Qais, not to marry a man because the man was known for beating women:
"I went to the Prophet and said: Abul Jahm and Mu'awiah have proposed to marry me. The Prophet (by way of advice) said: As to Mu'awiah he is very poor and Abul Jahm is accustomed to beating women" (Muslim).


It has to be noted that the Talmud sanctions wife beating as chastisement for the purpose of discipline. 39 The husband is not restricted to the extreme cases such as those of open lewdness. He is allowed to beat his wife even if she just refuses to do her house work. Moreover, he is not limited only to the use of light punishment. He is permitted to break his wife's stubbornness by the lash or by starving her.


For the wife whose husband's ill-conduct is the cause for the marriage's near collapse, the Quran offers the following advice:

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best" (4:128).

In this case, the wife is advised to seek reconciliation with her husband (with or without family assistance). It is notable that the Quran is not advising the wife to resort to the two measures of abstention from sex and beating. The reason for this disparity might be to protect the wife from a violent physical reaction by her already misbehaving husband. Such a violent physical reaction will do both the wife and the marriage more harm than good. Some Muslim scholars have suggested that the court can apply these measures against the husband on the wife's behalf. That is, the court first admonishes the rebellious husband, then forbids him his wife's bed, and finally executes a symbolic beating.


To sum up, Islam offers Muslim married couples much viable advice to save their marriages in cases of trouble and tension. If one of the partners is jeopardizing the matrimonial relationship, the other partner is advised by the Quran to do whatever possible and effective in order to save this sacred bond. If all the measures fail, Islam allows the partners to separate peacefully and amicably.

MOTHERS

MOTHERS
"salina salha" guidance4allofyou@yahoo.com


The Old Testament in several places commands kind and considerate treatment of the parents and condemns those who dishonor them. For example, "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death" (Lev. 20:9) and "A wise man brings joy to his father but a foolish man despises his mother" (Proverbs 15:20). Although honoring the father alone is mentioned in some places, e.g. "A wise man heeds his father's instruction" (Proverbs 13:1), the mother alone is never mentioned. Moreover, there is no special emphasis on treating the mother kindly as a sign of appreciation of her great suffering in childbearing and suckling. Besides, mothers do not inherit at all from their children while fathers do.


It is difficult to speak of the New Testament as a scripture that calls for honoring the mother. To the contrary, one gets the impression that the New Testament considers kind treatment of mothers as an impediment on the way to God. According to the New Testament, one cannot become a good Christian worthy of becoming a disciple of Christ unless he hates his mother. It is attributed to Jesus to have said:


"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he can not be my disciple" (Luke 14:26).

Furthermore, the New Testament depicts a picture of Jesus as indifferent to, or even disrespectful of, his own mother. For example, when she had come looking for him while he was preaching to a crowd, he did not care to go out to see her:

"Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone to call him. A crowd was sitting around him and they told him, 'Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.' 'Who are my mother and my brothers?' he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said,' Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.' " (Mark 3:31-35)

One might argue that Jesus was trying to teach his audience an important lesson that religious ties are no less important than family ties. However, he could have taught his listeners the same lesson without showing such absolute indifference to his mother. The same disrespectful attitude is depicted when he refused to endorse a statement made by a member of his audience blessing his mother's role in giving birth to him and nursing him:
"As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, 'Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.' He replied, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.' " (Luke 11:27-28)

If a mother with the stature of the virgin Mary had been treated with such discourtesy, as depicted in the New Testament, by a son of the stature of Jesus Christ, then how should an average Christian mother be treated by her average Christian sons?

In Islam, the honor, respect, and esteem attached to motherhood is unparalleled. The Quran places the importance of kindness to parents as second only to worshipping God Almighty:

"Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, And that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your life, Say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, But address them in terms of honor. And out of kindness, Lower to them the wing of humility, and say: 'My Lord! bestow on them Your Mercy as they Cherished me in childhood' " (17:23-24).

The Quran in several other places puts special emphasis on the mother's great role in giving birth and nursing:

"And We have enjoined on man to be good to his parents: In travail upon travail did his mother bear him and in two years was his weaning. Show gratitude to Me and to your parents" (31:14).

The very special place of mothers in Islam has been eloquently described by Prophet Muhammad:


"A man asked the Prophet: 'Whom should I honor most?' The Prophet replied: 'Your mother'. 'And who comes next?' asked the man. The Prophet replied: 'Your mother'. 'And who comes next?' asked the man. The Prophet replied: 'Your mother!'. 'And who comes next?' asked the man. The Prophet replied: 'Your father'" (Bukhari and Muslim).


Among the few precepts of Islam which Muslims still faithfully observe to the present day is the considerate treatment of mothers. The honor that Muslim mothers receive from their sons and daughters is exemplary. The intensely warm relations between Muslim mothers and their children and the deep respect with which Muslim men approach their mothers usually amaze Westerners.

Grounds for Polygamy in Islam

Grounds for Polygamy in Islam
"salina salha" guidance4allofyou@yahoo.com

Polygamy is permitted in the Quran, but under strictly observed circumstances. Any abuse of this divine permission incurs severe retribution. Thus, although polygamy is permitted by God, it behooves us to examine our circumstances carefully before saying that a particular polygamous relationship is permissible.

Our perfect example here is the prophet Muhammad. He was married to one wife, Khadijah, until she died. He had all his children, except one, from Khadijah. Thus, she and her children enjoyed the Prophet's full attention for as long as she was married to him; twenty-five years. For all practical purposes, Muhammad had one wife - from the age of 25 to 50. During the remaining 13 years of his life, he married the aged widows of his friends who left many children. The children needed a complete home, with a fatherly figure, and the Prophet provided that. Providing a fatherly figure for orphans is the only specific circumstance in support of polygamy mentioned in the Quran (4:3).

Other than marrying widowed mothers of orphans, there were three political marriages in the Prophet's life. His close friends Abu Bakr and Omar insisted that he marry their daughters, Aisha and Hafsah, to establish traditional family ties among them. The third marriage was to Maria the Egyptian; she was given to him as a political gesture of friendship from the ruler of Egypt.

This perfect example tells us that a man must give his full attention and loyalty in marriage to his wife and children in order to raise a happy and wholesome family.

The Quran emphasizes the limitations against polygamy in very strong words:

"If you fear lest you may not be perfectly equitable in treating more than one wife, then you shall be content with one." (4:3)

"You cannot be equitable in a polygamous relationship, no matter how hard you try." (4:129)

The Quranic limitations against polygamy point out the possibility of abusing God's law. Therefore, unless we are absolutely sure that God's law will not be abused, we had better resist our lust and stay away from polygamy. If the circumstances do not dictate polygamy, we had better give our full attention to one wife and one set of children. The children's psychological and social well-being, especially in countries where polygamy is prohibited, almost invariably dictate monogamy. A few basic criteria must be observed in contemplating polygamy:

1. It must alleviate pain and suffering and not cause any pain or suffering.
2. If you have a young family, it is almost certain that polygamy is an abuse.
3. Polygamy to substitute a younger wife is an abuse of God's law (4:19).

POLYGAMY

POLYGAMY

Ploygamy in Islam is for exceptional cases


Let us now tackle the important question of polygamy. Polygamy is a very ancient practice found in many human societies. The Bible did not condemn polygamy. To the contrary, the Old Testament and Rabbinic writings frequently attest to the legality of polygamy. King Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3) Also, king David is said to have had many wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13).

The Old Testament does have some injunctions on how to distribute the property of a man among his sons from different wives (Deut. 22:7). The only restriction on polygamy is a ban on taking a wife's sister as a rival wife (Lev. 18:18). The Talmud advises a maximum of four wives.

European Jews continued to practice polygamy until the sixteenth century. Oriental Jews regularly practiced polygamy until they arrived in Israel where it is forbidden under civil law. However, under religious law which overrides civil law in such cases, it is permissible. 52
What about the New Testament? According to Father Eugene Hillman in his insightful book, Polygamy reconsidered, "Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy."

Moreover, Jesus has not spoken against polygamy though it was practiced by the Jews of his society. Father Hillman stresses the fact that the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife while tolerating concubinage and prostitution) . He cited St. Augustine, "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife."

African churches and African Christians often remind their European brothers that the Church's ban on polygamy is a cultural tradition and not an authentic Christian injunction.

The Quran, too, allowed polygamy, but not without restrictions:

"If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one" (4:3).

The Quran, contrary to the Bible, limited the maximum number of wives to four under the strict condition of treating the wives equally and justly. It should not be understood that the Quran is exhorting the believers to practice polygamy, or that polygamy is considered as an ideal. In other words, the Quran has "tolerated" or "allowed" polygamy, and no more, but why? Why is polygamy permissible ? The answer is simple: there are places and times in which there are compelling social and moral reasons for polygamy. As the above Quranic verse indicates, the issue of polygamy in Islam cannot be understood apart from community obligations towards orphans and widows. Islam as a universal religion suitable for all places and all times could not ignore these compelling obligations.

In most human societies, females outnumber males. In the U.S. there are, at least, eight million more women than men. In a country like Guinea there are 122 females for every 100 males. In Tanzania, there are 95.1 males per 100 females.

What should a society do towards such unbalanced sex ratios? There are various solutions, some might suggest celibacy, others would prefer female infanticide (which does happen in some societies in the world today !). Others may think the only outlet is that the society should tolerate all manners of sexual permissiveness: prostitution, sex out of wedlock, homosexuality, etc. For other societies , like most African societies today, the most honorable outlet is to allow polygamous marriage as a culturally accepted and socially respected institution.

The point that is often misunderstood in the West is that women in other cultures do not necessarily look at polygamy as a sign of women's degradation. For example, many young African brides , whether Christians or Muslims or otherwise, would prefer to marry a married man who has already proved himself to be a responsible husband. Many African wives urge their husbands to get a second wife so that they do not feel lonely.

A survey of over six thousand women, ranging in age from 15 to 59, conducted in the second largest city in Nigeria showed that 60 percent of these women would be pleased if their husbands took another wife. Only 23 percent expressed anger at the idea of sharing with another wife. Seventy-six percent of the women in a survey conducted in Kenya viewed polygamy positively. In a survey undertaken in rural Kenya, 25 out of 27 women considered polygamy to be better than monogamy. These women felt polygamy can be a happy and beneficial experience if the co-wives cooperate with each other.

Polygamy in most African societies is such a respectable institution that some Protestant churches are becoming more tolerant of it. A bishop of the Anglican Church in Kenya declared that, "Although monogamy may be ideal for the expression of love between husband and wife, the church should consider that in certain cultures polygyny is socially acceptable and that the belief that polygyny is contrary to Christianity is no longer tenable." After a careful study of African polygamy, Reverend David Gitari of the Anglican Church has concluded that polygamy, as ideally practiced, is more Christian than divorce and remarriage as far as the abandoned wives and children are concerned.

The problem of the unbalanced sex ratios becomes truly problematic at times of war. Native American Indian tribes used to suffer highly unbalanced sex ratios after wartime losses. Women in these tribes, who in fact enjoyed a fairly high status, accepted polygamy as the best protection against indulgence in indecent activities. European settlers, without offering any other alternative, condemned this Indian polygamy as 'uncivilised' .

After the second world war, there were 7,300,000 more women than men in Germany (3.3 million of them were widows). There were 100 men aged 20 to 30 for every 167 women in that age group. Many of these women needed a man not only as a companion but also as a provider for the household in a time of unprecedented misery and hardship. The soldiers of the victorious Allied Armies exploited these women's vulnerability. Many young girls and widows had liaisons with members of the occupying forces. Many American and British soldiers paid for their pleasures in cigarettes, chocolate, and bread. Children were overjoyed at the gifts these strangers brought. A 10 year old boy on hearing of such gifts from other children wished from all his heart for an 'Englishman' for his mother so that she need not go hungry any longer. We have to ask our own conscience at this point: What is more dignifying to a woman? An accepted and respected second wife as in the native
Indians' approach, or a virtual prostitute as in the 'civilised' Allies approach? In other words, what is more dignifying to a woman, the Quranic prescription or the theology based on the culture of the Roman Empire?

It is interesting to note that in an international youth conference held in Munich in 1948 the problem of the highly unbalanced sex ratio in Germany was discussed. When it became clear that no solution could be agreed upon, some participants suggested polygamy. The initial reaction of the gathering was a mixture of shock and disgust. However, after a careful study of the proposal, the participants agreed that it was the only possible solution.

Consequently, polygamy was included among the conference final recommendations.

The world today possesses more weapons of mass destruction than ever before and the European churches might, sooner or later, be obliged to accept polygamy as the only way out. Father Hillman has thoughtfully recognized this fact, "It is quite conceivable that these genocidal techniques (nuclear, biological, chemical..) could produce so drastic an imbalance among the sexes that plural marriage would become a necessary means of survival.... Then contrary to previous custom and law, an overriding natural and moral inclination might arise in favour of polygamy. In such a situation, theologians and church leaders would quickly produce weighty reasons and biblical texts to justify a new conception of marriage."

To the present day, polygamy continues to be a viable solution to some of the social ills of modern societies. The communal obligations that the Quran mentions in association with the permission of polygamy are more visible at present in some Western societies than in Africa. For example, In the United States today, there is a severe gender crisis in the black community. One out of every twenty young black males may die before reaching the age of 21. For those between 20 and 35 years of age, homicide is the leading cause of death.

Besides, many young black males are unemployed, in jail, or on dope. As a result, one in four black women, at age 40, has never married, as compared with one in ten white women. Moreover, many young black females become single mothers before the age of 20 and find themselves in need of providers. The end result of these tragic circumstances is that an increasing number of black women are engaged in what is called 'man-sharing' .

That is, many of these hapless single black women are involved in affairs with married men. The wives are often unaware of the fact that other women are 'sharing' their husbands with them. Some observers of the crisis of man-sharing in the African American community strongly recommend consensual polygamy as a temporary answer to the shortage of black males until more comprehensive reforms in the American society at large are undertaken.

By consensual polygamy they mean a polygamy that is sanctioned by the community and to which all the parties involved have agreed, as opposed to the usually secret man-sharing which is detrimental both to the wife and to the community in general. The problem of man-sharing in the African American community was the topic of a panel discussion held at Temple University in Philadelphia on January 27, 1993. 70 Some of the speakers recommended polygamy as one potential remedy for the crisis. They also suggested that polygamy should not be banned by law, particularly in a society that tolerates prostitution and mistresses. The comment of one woman from the audience that African Americans needed to learn from Africa where polygamy was responsibly practiced elicited enthusiastic applause.

Philip Kilbride, an American anthropologist of Roman Catholic heritage, in his provocative book, Plural marriage for our time, proposes polygamy as a solution to some of the ills of the American society at large. He argues that plural marriage may serve as a potential alternative for divorce in many cases in order to obviate the damaging impact of divorce on many children. He maintains that many divorces are caused by the rampant extramarital affairs in the American society. According to Kilbride, ending an extramarital affair in a polygamous marriage, rather than in a divorce, is better for the children, "Children would be better served if family augmentation rather than only separation and dissolution were seen as options." Moreover, he suggests that other groups will also benefit from plural marriage such as: elderly women who face a chronic shortage of men and the African Americans who are involved in man-sharing.

In 1987, a poll conducted by the student newspaper at the university of California at Berkeley asked the students whether they agreed that men should be allowed by law to have more than one wife in response to a perceived shortage of male marriage candidates in California. Almost all of the students polled approved of the idea. One female student even stated that a polyganous marriage would fulfil her emotional and physical needs while giving her greater freedom than a monogamous union. In fact, this same argument is also used by the few remaining fundamentalist Mormon women who still practice polygamy in the U.S. They believe that polygamy is an ideal way for a woman to have both a career and children since the wives help each other care for the children.

It has to be added that polygamy in Islam is a matter of mutual consent. No one can force a woman to marry a married man. Besides, the wife has the right to stipulate that her husband must not marry any other woman as a second wife. The Bible, on the other hand, sometimes resorts to forcible polygamy. A childless widow must marry her husband's brother, even if he is already married (see the "Plight of Widows" section),regardless of her consent (Genesis 38:8-10).

It should be noted that in many Muslim societies today the practice of polygamy is rare since the gap between the numbers of both sexes is not huge. One can, safely, say that the rate of polygamous marriages in the Muslim world is much less than the rate of extramarital affairs in the West. In other words, men in the Muslim world today are far more strictly monogamous than men in the Western world.

Billy Graham, the eminent Christian evangelist has recognized this fact: "Christianity cannot compromise on the question of polygamy. If present-day Christianity cannot do so, it is to its own detriment. Islam has permitted polygamy as a solution to social ills and has allowed a certain degree of latitude to human nature but only within the strictly defined framework of the law. Christian countries make a great show of monogamy, but actually they practice polygamy. No one is unaware of the part mistresses play in Western society. In this respect Islam is a fundamentally honest religion, and permits a Muslim to marry a second wife if he must, but strictly forbids all clandestine amatory associations in order to safeguard the moral probity of the community."

It is of interest to note that many, non-Muslim as well as Muslim, countries in the world today have outlawed polygamy. Taking a second wife, even with the free consent of the first wife, is a violation of the law. On the other hand, cheating on the wife, without her knowledge or consent, is perfectly legitimate as far as the law is concerned! What is the legal wisdom behind such a contradiction? Is the law designed to reward deception and punish honesty? It is one of the unfathomable paradoxes of our modern 'civilised' world.

Polygamy in Islam is for exceptional cases to support women mostly divorcees ,orphans, widower rather than treating them as your mistresses which is close to prostitution and contrary to criticism polygamy in Muslim world is practiced by only 1 % and most of the cases are exceptional.

Republika kedepan dipimpin Milyader pro Yahudi

Republika kedepan dipimpin Milyader pro Yahudi

Harian Umum Republika pendirian awalnya dimotori sejumlah tokoh Ikatan Cendekiawan Muslim Indonesia (ICMI) yang notabene visi dan misinya menjadikan Republika sebagai media yang menyuarakan aspirasi umat Islam sebagai tuan rumah di negeri ini.

Dalam RUPS (Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham) PT. Abdi Bangsa Tbk (ABBA) pada Juni 2008. Tampilnya wajah-wajah baru yang duduk dalam jajaran Dewan Komisaris ABBA, seperti KH. Abdullah Gymnastiar alias Aa Gym dan mantan Pemimpin Kantor Berita Antara, Asro Kamal Rokan. Masuknya orang-orang baru ini diharapkan Republika tetap konsisten menyuarakan suara umat Islam bahkan berjuang lebih gigih lagi.

Tapi yang mengejutkan adalah masuknya CEO The Independent News Media Group (INM) Gavin O'Reilly dalam jajaran Dewan Komisaris ABBA. Orang yang satu ini layak untuk dikritisi. Siapa sebenarnya Gavin O'Reilly?

Saham Republika di beli IndependentHarian terkenal The Independent dan Republika dalam waktu dekat akan 'terkait'. Demikian yang dikatakan beberapa portal berita di internet. Ini karena International News and Media Ltd (INM) yang merupakan penerbit The Independen akan membeli induk harian Republika, PT Abdi Bangsa Tbk (ABBA) senilai Rp 67,5 miliar, seperti yang dikatakan Presiden Direktur ABBA, Erick Thohir yang dilansir detikFinance, Sabtu (31/5).

Penjualan dari saham tersebut rencananya akan dialokasikan untuk akuisisi PT.Radionet Cipta Karya dan PT Praisindo Teknologi, penyertaan modal kerja di PT Avabanindo Perkasa dan PT Republika Media Mandiri.

"Di Mahaka Billboard (PT Avabanindo Perkasa) kami berencana menambah titik Billboard. Di harian Republika (PT Republika Media Mandiri) akan digunakan untuk menambah permodalan, mungkin untuk menambah mesin dan sebagainya," kata Erick Thohir, Presiden Direktur ABBA.

Milyader Pro Yahudi
Ketika berita ini muncul di Eramuslim dengan judul " Milyader Yahudi Jadi Komisaris HU Republika" pada 1 Juli 2008, sontak mendatangkan kritikan tajam bahkan ancaman untuk mensomasi Eramuslim jika tidak segera menurunkan tulisan tersebut. Yang kemudian oleh Eramuslim sebutan 'Milyader Yahudi Irlandia' di ralat menjadi 'Milyader Irlandia'.

CEO The Independent News Media Group (INM) Gavin O'Reilly yang masuk dalam jajaran Dewan Komisaris ABBA, adalah anak Sir Anthony O'Reilly. Kiprah keluarga O'Reilly ini dalam salah satu yayasannya yang bernama O'Reilly Institute (Trinity College Dublin) ternyata memang menjadi salah satu donor bagi pengembangan Jewish Studies. Bisa kita baca di (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_O'Reilly dan juga di www.tcd.ie/trinityfoundation/foundationboard/tfboreilly.php).

Independensi Republika sebagai Media IslamMengutip kembali beberapa pemberitaan media yag mengatakan bahwa, Harian terkenal The Independent dan Republika dalam waktu dekat akan 'terkait'. Terkait dalam hal yang bagaimana? Lalu apakah Republika akan luntur warna keislamannya, seperti yang dikhawatirkan banyak pihak? Kita akan lihat bagaimana respon masyarakat dan bagaimana usaha Republika untuk kembali meyakinkan pembacanya.
(Sally Sety)

Islam Melawan Mitos yang Dihembuskan Barat

Islam Melawan Mitos yang Dihembuskan Barat
Kamis, 23 Mar 06 09:18 WIB


Negara-negara maju kerap memiliki pemahaman yang salah tentang Islam. Salah satu pehamanan yang salah itu adalah Islam dianggap sebagai agama yang tidak toleran terhadap keyakinan agama lain. Ada keyakinan yang sudah begitu meluas bahwa umat Islam diperintahkan untuk bersikap 'agama Islam atau pedang' terhadap non Muslim. Pemahaman yang salah ini makin berkembang, sehingga dimanfaatkan oleh segelintir penguasa untuk menghembuskan wacana bahwa Islam adalah ancaman bagi Barat.


Toleransi dalam Al-Quran
Dalam tulisannya berjudul Myth of Islamic Intolerance, Syed Imaduddin Asad dosen di Punjab Law College, Lahore Pakistan menyatakan, pemahaman yang salah itu juga sudah melanda sebagian umat Islam sendiri. Salah satu penyebabnya, karena perilaku sekelompok Muslim atau penguasa Muslim yang tidak bertanggung jawab, kasar dan tercela, ikut memberi kontrubusi bagi pandangan yang buruk tentang Islam. Dalam hal ini, Syed Imaduddin Asad melihat makin banyak umat Islam yang tidak lagi peduli pada ajaran-ajaran yang terdapat dalam Al-Quran maupun Hadist, sehingga perilaku mereka menyimpang dari ajaran Islam yang sebenarnya.

Padahal, menurut Imaduddin Asad, Al-Quran menyebutkan bahwa toleransi merupakan hal yang esensial dan kewajiban bagi setiap Muslim. Umat Islam diperintahkan untuk menyebarluaskan pesan-pesan Islam dengan mengedepankan dialog dengan non Muslim dan dalam proses ini, umat Islam harus menerapkan cara-cara yang terhormat dan sopan, seperti tercantum dalam Al-Quran surat 16:125 yang berbunyi " Serulah (manusia) ke jalan Tuhan Mu dengan hikmah dan pelajaran yang baik dan bantahlah mereka dengan cara yang lebih baik......" Dan jika non Muslim cenderung memperlihatkan ketidaksetujuannya dengan Islam, meski sudah diberikan argumen yang logis, tidak boleh ada tekanan atau paksaan apalagi tindak kekerasan.

Firman Allah dalam Al-Quran 2:256 menyebutkan,"Tidak ada paksaan untuk (memasuki) agama (Islam)......" Ayat-ayat lainnya yang memperkuat bahwa Islam adalah agama yang toleran antara lain Surat 3:19, Surat 10:99 dan Surat 18:29. Dari ayat-ayat itu secara garis besar bisa disimpulkan bahwa Islam mengecam segala bentuk pemaksaan dalam memeluk agama dan Islam melarang umatnya untuk menyulut peperangan dalam menyebarkan agama Islam.

Lebih lanjut Syed Imaduddin mengatakan, umat Islam bukan hanya dilarang memaksakan agama Islam pada non Muslim, tapi umat Islam juga diperintahkan untuk menajalin hubungan dengan Non Muslim dengan sikap yang baik dan adil seperti tercantum dalam Al-Quran Surat 60:8,9. Islam juga mengakui semua nabi dan rasul sebelum Muhammad Saw, seperti Ibrahim, Musa, Daud, Isa dan lain-lain, serta kitab-kitab sebelumnya seperti Taurat dan Zabur dan umat Islam juga dilarang untuk menghina Tuhan-Tuhan yang diyakini non Muslim seperti tercantum dalam Al-Quran 6:108.

Nabi Muhammad Saw Mencontohkan Perdamaian

Sunnah-sunnah Nabi yang terkait dengan perintah bagi umat Islam agar bersikap baik terhadap Non Muslim juga sangat banyak. Perjanjian antara Nabi Muhammad Saw dan umat Kristen di Gunung Sinai adalah salah satu contoh besar dari sikap toleransi dan mengakui adanya keberagaman agama dalam masyarakat.

"Ini adalah pesan dari Nabi Muhammad bin Abdullah, sebagai perjanjian terhadap kaum Kristiani, bahwa kami bersama mereka di manapun mereka berada. Sesungguhnya, aku, para pelayan dan pembantuku serta para pengikutku akan membela mereka, karena umat Kristen juga anggota masyarakatku: Demi Tuhan, aku akan melepaskan segala hal yang tidak menyenangkan mereka. Tidak ada paksaan bagi mereka,........."

"Tak seorangpun boleh menghancurkan rumah ibadah mereka, merusak atau mengambil sesuatu dari tempat itu ke rumah-rumah orang Islam. Jika ada yang melakukannya, maka orang itu merusak perjanjiannya dengan Tuhan dan ingkar pada Nabinya. Sesungguhnya, mereka adalah sahabat-sahabatku dan mendapatkan perlindunganku dari segala yang mereka benci. Tak seorangpun yang akan memaksa mereka pergi atau mewajibkan mereka berperang. Umat Islam akan berperang untuk mereka...gereja -gereja mereka akan dihormati, Tak satupun negara (Islam) boleh melanggar perjanjian ini hingga hari akhir."

Ketika utusan umat Kristen dari Najran datang ingin bertemu dengan Nabi Muhammad Saw, utusan itu dibolehkan untuk masuk ke masjidnya bahkan diizinkan untuk berdoa di masjid itu sesuai keyakinan mereka. Nabi Muhammad Saw juga memberikan mereka piagam perjanjian yang sama bunyinya dengan piagam di atas.

Nabi Muhammad Saw bukan hanya kepala negara Islam yang pertama, tapi juga otoritas hukum tertinggi. Non Muslim seringkali datang padanya untuk meminta bantuan menyelesaikan pertikaian yang mereka hadapi. Ketika harus mengambil keputusan yang terkait dengan pertikaian antara Muslim dan Non Muslim, Nabi Muhammad Saw selalu mencari rujukannya dalam Al-Quran dan tidak pernah membuat perbedaan atas dasar agama yang dianut mereka.

Ajaran-ajaran dalam Al-Quran dan contoh-contoh yang diberikan Nabi Muhammad Saw diikuti oleh para pemimpin Muslim sesudah Nabi. Misalnya pada masa kalifah Umar bin Khattab ketika menaklukkan Yerusalem pada 638 Masehi. Ia mendeklarasikan bahwa mereka akan melindungi harta benda, anak-anak, gereja dan semua yang menjadi milik penganut Kristen.

Sejarah Islam menunjukkan bahwa semua hak yang diberikan pada Non Muslim juga diterapkan oleh negara-negara Islam. Bahkan beberapa wilayah Muslim menjadi tempat perlindungan bagi para pengungsi non Muslim yang mengalami penindasan dan kekejaman di tempat lain. Spanyol, di bawah pemerintahan Muslim, menjadi satu-satunya tempat di Eropa di mana bangsa Yahudi bisa hidup dengan aman dan damai. Setelah kejatuhan kekuasaan Islam di Spanyol, bangsa Yahudi diusir dan mereka kembali menemukan tempat aman di bawah pemerintahan Islam, misalnya di wilayah kekuasaan Utsmaniyyah. Contoh lainnya adalah India. Meski berabad-abad pernah berada di bawah kekuasaan pemerintahan Islam, mayoritas rakyat di negeri itu tetap non Muslim. Bahkan para pemimpin Muslim kerap memberikan donasi bagi rumah-rumah ibadah non Muslim India, seperti Hindu dan lain sebagainya. Yang menarik untuk diingat, menurut Al-Maqrizi, semua gereja-gereja terkenal di kota Kairo, dibangun pada masa pemerintahan Muslim.

Islam: Ancaman Bagi Barat?

Perkembangan yang terjadi belakangan ini, pandangan bahwa agama Islam merupakan ancaman bagi peradaban Barat, juga makin menguat. Meski terkesan berlebihan, Islam dianggap sebagai kekuatan setan yang akan sukses seperti kekuatan Komunis pada masa lalu.

Menanggapi pandangan ini, John Renard, seorang Ph.D. di bidang Studi Islam dari Harvard University dan seorang professor bidang studi teologi di st. Louis University, dalam bukunya 'Excerpted from 101 Questions and Answers on Islam' menjelaskan, selama beberapa dekade belakangan ini, sudah banyak pembicaraan tentang 'Kebangkitan Kembali Islam' yang dipicu oleh revolusi di Iran, gerakan Intifada di Palestina dan pengaruh penguasa Taliban di Afghanistan. Buku-buku seperti buku yang berjudul 'The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East (1982)' mendorong munculnya momok menakutkan adanya konspirasi nuklir, seolah-olah Islam mewakili sebuah kesatuan politik yang ingin mendominasi dunia.

Pada kenyataannya, menurut Renard 'Islam' tidak seperti ideologi 'isme-isme' lainnya yang oleh orang dibayangkan akan membawa kepentingan politik dan sumber-sumber ekonomi untuk mencapai tujuan global dan regional, seperti kapitalisme, komunisme, kolonialisme, imperialisme atau dalam skala yang kecil, Zionisme.

Sebaliknya, Barat dan kelompok sekular membentuk semacam blok politik, ekonomi, budaya yang kukuh menentang moral dan nilai-nilai agama yang berasal dari 'Timur'.

Umat Islam secara keseluruhan, menurut Renard, sangat rentan atas generalisasi seperti yang terjadi saat ini, sementara non Muslim dalam beberapa hal ikut bertanggung jawab atas timbulnya dikotomi semacam ini. Pendek kata, tegas Renard, Islam sebagai agama tradisi dalam hal apapun bukan ancaman bagi perdamaian dan tatanan dunia. (ln/Islamicity)

Iran Akan Menyerang "32 Pangkalan AS" Jika Diserang

13/07/08 06:22

Iran Akan Menyerang "32 Pangkalan AS" Jika Diserang


Teheran, (ANTARA News) - Iran akan menyerang "32 pangkalan AS dan pusat Israel" jika negaranya diserang, kata seorang asisten pemimpin tertinggi, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, seperti dikutip oleh kantor berita Fars Sabtu.

"Jika Amerika dan Israel menembakkan peluru atau rudal terhadap negara kami, pasukan bersenjata Iran akan menyerang pusat Israel dan 32 pangkalan AS di kawasan ini sebelum debu dari serangan mereka mengendap," Mojtaba Zolnoor mengatakan sebagaimana dilaporkan AFP dari Fars.

Zolnoor adalah deputi wakil Khamanei untuk pasukan elit Garda Revolusi, pasukan yang menguasai persenjataan berat Iran, khususnya rudal jarak jauhnya yang daoat menyerang Isral dan pangkalan AS di Teluk.

AS dan sekutu penting regionalnya Israel tak pernah mengesampingkan serangan terhadap Iran karena upaya nuklirnya, yang Barat khawatirkan dapat ditujukan untuk membuat senjata nuklir.

Ada kekhawatiran serangan terhadap Iran sudah dekat, setelah Israel melakukan manuver di Yunani yang secara efektif adalah latihan bagi suatu kemungkinan serangan terhadap fasilitas nuklir Iran.

Jurubicara pemerintah, Gholam Hossein Elham, Sabtu mengesamapingkan spekulasi bahwa Iran berisiko diserang oleh AS, dengan mengatakan bahwa serangan militer adalah sesuatu yang "tidak waras".

Republik Islam itu telah berulangkali memperingatkan balasan yang menghancurkan pada setiap serangan terhadap wilayahnya.

Iran membantah tuduhan Barat dan bersikeras program nuklirnya dimaksudkan hanya untuk membangkitkan energi untuk penduduk yang bertambah yang cadangan bahan bakar fosilnya akhirnya akan habis.

Ketegangan karena konflik nuklir itu meningkat lagi dalam beberapa hari belakangan ini setelah Iran menguji coba tembakan serentak sejumlah rudal -- termasuk satu yang negara itu katakan dapat membawa Israel dalam jarak (tembak) -- dalam latihan perang yang telah memicu kekhawatiran internasional.(*)

Kubu Liberal Versus Islam, Pasca Monas

Kubu Liberal Versus Islam, Pasca Monas
Posted on 14 June 2008

Detik Islam.com — Tanggal 9 Juni 2008 Surat Keputusan Bersama (SKB) antara Menteri Agama, Menteri Dalam Negeri, dan Kejaksaan Agung yang ditunggu sejak pertengahan April lalu akhirnya keluar. Namun, “Tidak ada pembubaran atau pembekuan (Ahmadiyah, red.). Bila melanggar SKB, baru dibekukan, ” ujar Jaksa Agung Suparman Supandji (10/6/08).

Hal senada disampaikan Menteri Agama Maftuh Basuni. Keputusan dalam SKB itu di antaranya berbunyi: Memberi peringatan dan memerintahkan kepada penganut, anggota, dan/atau anggota pengurus Jamaah Ahmadiyah Indonesia (JAI), sepanjang mengaku beragama Islam, untuk menghentikan penyebaran penafsiran dan kegiatan yang menyimpang dari pokok-pokok ajaran Islam, yaitu penyebaran paham yang mengakui adanya nabi dengan segala ajarannya setelah Nabi Muhammad saw.

Tanggapan Terhadap SKB

Pertama: kelompok Ahmadiyah dan Aliansi Kebangsaan untuk Kebebasan Beragama dan Berkeyakinan (AKKBB) memandang SKB tidak adil. Karenanya, mereka akan mengajukan judicial review (uji materi) ke Mahkamah Konstitusi. Juru Bicara Ahmadiyah, Syamsir Ali, menyayangkan keluarnya SKB. Dalam wawancara di TV One dia menuduh Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) sebagai ‘tidak ahli’, ‘musuh kami’, dan ‘fatwa MUI merupakan biang dari kisruh terkait Ahmadiyah.’ (TV One, 10/6/2008).

Kedua: pihak yang menerima isi SKB dengan catatan harus dilaksanakan secara konsisten. Ketua MUI Amidhan (9/6/2008) menyatakan, “Saya mengimbau kepada umat untuk menerima SKB. Namun, pelaksanaannya harus konsisten.” Untuk itu, lanjutnya, negara harus: (1) Mengontrol jamaah Ahmadiyah, termasuk pengurusnya, supaya tidak menyebarkan ajaran sesat Ahmadiyah; (2) Menarik buku-buku yang dikeluarkan Ahmadiyah dari peredaran; minimal ada 46 buku yang telah diteliti MUI dan ternyata menyimpang dari Islam; (3) Menghentikan program relay TV Ahmadiyah yang merupakan sarana penyebaran ajarannya; (4) Menghentikan pengiriman dai yang dilakukan Ahmadiyah ke daerah-daerah untuk mendakwahkan ajaran Ahmadiyah.

Ketiga: pihak yang menghargai keluarnya SKB, namun tetap pada tuntutan pembubaran Ahmadiyah. Pihak ini merupakan mayoritas umat Islam yang sejak awal menuntut pembubaran Ahmadiyah. Pasalnya, SKB tersebut belum menyentuh substansi persoalan, yaitu penodaan/penistaan agama Islam oleh Ahmadiyah¡½yang menetapkan ada nabi setelah Nabi Muhammad saw. dan pengacak-acakan al-Quran. Keyakinan demikian tidak dapat dipisahkan dari Ahmadiyah. Karenanya, Ahmadiyah harus dibubarkan dan pengikutnya diminta bertobat dan kembali ke ajaran Islam yang benar.

Ahmadiyah Harus Dibubarkan

Apakah SKB tersebut akan menyelesaikan masalah? Semoga saja begitu. Namun, pihak Ahmadiyah dan AKKBB merasa tidak puas dengan SKB dan akan meneruskan jalur hukum. Bahkan ketika Juru Bicara Ahmadiyah Syamsir Ali ditanya, apakah akan menjalankan apa yang tercantum dalam SKB, dia menjawab, “Kita lihat nanti.” (TV One, 10/6/2008). Ahmadiyah Jawa Tengah menyatakan akan mematuhi sebagian isi SKB (RCTI, 10/6/2008). Tidak jelas bagian mana yang akan dipatuhi dan mana yang tidak.

Umat Islam sesungguhnya tetap pada tuntutannya semula, yakni menuntut pembubaran Ahmadiyah. Sekretaris Jenderal DPP PPP, Irgan Chairul Mahfiz, menyatakan, “SKB perintah penghentian (kegiatan) saja tidak memenuhi tuntutan umat Islam yang menganggap ajaran tersebut telah berada di luar akidah Islam, ” ujarnya (Republika, 10/6/2008).

Eggi Sudjana dari Aliansi Damai Anti Penistaan Islam (ADA API) mengatakan, “SKB merupakan bom waktu yang dibuat oleh Pemerintah.” (9/6/2008).

Amir Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia Abu Bakar Ba’asyir menyatakan, “SKB 3 Menteri mengambang. Mestinya Ahmadiyah dibubarkan.” (RCTI, 10/6/2008).

Adapun Juru Bicara Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia menegaskan, “Sebagai sebuah proses, SKB penting diapresiasi. Namun, SKB tidak menyentuh masalah subtansial, yakni pelarangan atas penistaan dan penodaan Islam.” (TV One, 9/6/2008).

Terkait masalah ini, penting direnungkan pernyataan Ketua MUI KH Ma’ruf Amin, “MUI dan ormas Islam akan mengevaluasi efektivitas SKB tersebut. Kalau SKB itu tidak efektif menghentikan kegiatan keagamaan yang menyimpang, Ahmadiyah harus dilarang dan dibubarkan.” (Republika, 10/6/2008).

Pertarungan Islam vs Sekularisme Sekuler

Insiden Monas sesungguhnya adalah percikan dari benturan antara arus sekuler dan Islam. Isu Ahmadiyah hanyalah case (kasus) yang mendorong kelompok sekular liberal untuk bergerak memberikan reaksi. Sebelumnya sudah ada beberapa kejadian terkait hal ini.

Pertama: pertentangan dalam isu Rancangan Undang-Undang Pornografi Pornoaksi (RUU APP). Ketika umat Islam mendukung disahkannya RUU APP menjadi undang-undang, kaum liberal justru menentangnya. Hingga kini tidak jelas bagaimana nasib RUU APP tersebut.

Kedua: terkait liberalisasi dalam ekonomi. Pada tahun 2005 beberapa tokoh utama AKKBB masuk dalam daftar nama-nama yang mendukung kenaikan bahan bakar minyak (BBM) lebih dari 100 persen itu. Di tengah rakyat bersama organisasi-organisasi Islam menentang kenaikan BBM dan liberalisasi Minyak dan gas, mereka justru mendukungnya.

Ketiga: ketika MUI dalam Musyawarah Nasional-nya mengharamkan sekularisme, pluralisme dan liberalisme, ormas-ormas Islam mendukung fatwa tersebut. Sebaliknya, kaum sekular menentangnya.

Keempat: Pada saat mayoritas umat Islam menuntut pembubaran Ahmadiyah karena menyimpang dari Islam, kaum sekular, dengan menggerakkan AKKBB, justru mendukung keberadaannya. Sekalipun telah jelas bahwa masalah Ahmadiyah adalah masalah penodaan dan penistaan agama Islam, tetap saja isu yang diusung adalah kebebasan beragama.

Setelah terjadinya Insiden Monas, dengan memanfaatkan media massa cetak dan elektronik, mereka melakukan penyesatan opini bahwa telah terjadi penyerangan terhadap massa AKKBB oleh massa FPI dan telah timbul korban di antaranya anak-anak, perempuan, orang cacat dan kyai. Padahal faktanya tidak terjadi sama sekali penyerangan terhadap anak-anak, perempuan dan orang cacat itu.

Bahkan isu beralih seakan menjadi pertentangan antara FPI dengan kaum Nahdliyin (NU). Untungnya, Ketua Umum PBNU KH Hasyim Muzadi segera menyatakan bahwa NU tidak terlibat dalam Insiden Monas itu sehingga pertentangan tidak berlanjut.

Anehnya, Insiden Monas telah mengundang reaksi internasional. PBB sampai harus mengirim surat khusus untuk mempertanyakan insiden tersebut. Kedutaan AS juga memberikan reaksi khusus dengan mengunjungi korban dan membuat konferensi pers khusus. Hal semacam ini tampaknya memang dikehendaki oleh kelompok liberal. Bahkan boleh jadi, sebagaimana disinyalir beberapa kalangan, Insiden Monas memang direkayasa pihak asing dengan memanfaat kelompok tersebut.

Jadi, apa yang tengah terjadi adalah pertarungan antara Islam dengan sekularisme. Waspadai Arus Sekularisasi dan Liberalisasi! Terbitnya SKB sendiri terkesan merupakan ‘kompromi’ akibat pertarungan kaum sekular-liberal dengan umat Islam.

Di satu sisi, umat Islam dengan serangkaian demontrasinya begitu lantang menyerukan pembubaran Ahmadiyah. Di sisi lain, kaum sekular-liberal¡½dengan dukungan media sekular dan asing¡½terus-menerus memprovokasi umat Islam dan menekan Pemerintah untuk tidak membubarkan Ahmadiyah.

Kerasnya kelompok sekular-liberal dan semakin beraninya mereka menyuarakan liberalisasinya di Indonesia seharusnya semakin menyadarkan umat Islam betapa semakin lama mereka bisa semakin kuat jika dibiarkan. Pasalnya, mereka didukung penuh Barat. Bahkan mereka sesungguhnya hanyalah alat Barat. Sebabnya, setelah Perang Dingin berakhir, Barat memiliki pandangan dan kebijakan khusus terhadap Islam. Islam dipandang musuh Barat berikutnya setelah runtuhnya Komunisme.

Karena itulah, berbagai upaya dilakukan Barat untuk ‘menjinakkan’ dan melemahkan Islam. Salah satu adalah dengan melakukan liberalisasi Islam besar-besaran di Indonesia dan Dunia Islam lainnya. David E. Kaplan menulis, AS telah menggelontorkan dana puluhan juta dolar dalam rangka kampanye untuk mengubah masyarakat Muslim sekaligus mengubah Islam itu sendiri.

Menurut Kaplan, Gedung Putih telah menyetujui strategi rahasia, yang untuk pertama kalinya AS memiliki kepentingan nasional untuk mempengaruhi apa yang terjadi di dalam Islam. Sekurangnya di 24 negara Muslim, AS secara diam-diam telah mendanai radio Islam, acara-acara TV, kursus-kursus di sekolah Islam, pusat-pusat kajian, workshop politik, dan program-program lain yang mempromosikan Islam moderat (versi AS). (Terjemahan dari David E. Kaplan, Hearts, Minds, and Dollars, www.usnews.com, 4-25-2005).

Sejumlah LSM juga dijadikan alat Barat untuk menikam Islam dan kaum Muslim. Salah satu lembaga asing yang sangat aktif dalam menyebarkan paham liberalisme dan pluralisme agama di Indonesia adalah The Asia Foundation (TAF). The Asia Foundation saat ini mendukung sekaligus mendanani lebih dari 30 LSM yang mempromosikan nilai-nilai Islam ‘liberal’, di antaranya:

1. Yayasan Desantara,

2. Fahmina Institute,

3. International Center for Islam Pluralism (ICIP),

4. Indonesia Conference on Religion and Peace (ICRP),

5. Institut Arus Informasi (ISAI),

6. Jaringan Islam Liberal (JIL),

7. Paramadina,

8. Pusat Studi Wanita-UIN,

9. Lembaga Kajian Islam dan Sosial (LKiS), dan

10. Wahid Institute. (Husaini, 2007)

Lebih dari itu, kebijakan untuk mengubah kurikulum dan pemikiran Islam juga pernah diungkapkan oleh Menhan AS, Donald Rumsfeld. “AS perlu menciptakan lembaga donor untuk mengubah kurikulum pendidikan Islam yang radikal menjadi moderat (Republika, 3/12/2005).

Umat Harus Bersatu

Menghadapi menguatnya arus liberalisasi di Indonesia akhir-akhir ini, yang puncaknya adalah pembelaan mati-matian kelompok sekular-liberal terhadap Ahmadiyah hingga kemudian memicu Insiden Monas, dalam sebuah wawancaranya, Juru Bicara Hizbut Tahrir.

Indonesia Ustadz Ismail Yusanto mengingatkan adanya pihak-pihak tertentu yang berusaha memecah-belah umat Islam dengan memanfaatkan Insiden Monas ini. “Nah, umat Islam, ormas Islam dan tokoh-tokohnya harus bersatu-padu, dan tidak boleh bercerai-berai, ” ujar Ustadz Ismail. (Hizbut-tahrir.or.id, 9/6/2008).

Persatuan umat Islam, selain jelas diperlukan, juga diwajibkan oleh syariah. Allah SWT berfirman: “Berpegang teguhlah kalian pada tali (agama) Allah dan janganlah bercerai-berai” (QS Ali Imran: 103).

Umat Islam tidak hanya dituntut bersatu memegang teguh agama Allah, tetapi juga bersatu dalam menghadapi musuh-musuh Islam dan kaum Muslim. Mereka adalah orang-orang kafir yang saat ini gencar melakukan liberalisasi di tengah-tengah kaum Muslim di segala bidang: agama, ekonomi, politik, pendidikan, sosial, kebudayaan dll. Karena itu, umat Islam harus selalu waspada, karena Allah SWT telah memperingatkan: “Kaum Yahudi dan Nasrani tidak akan pernah rela kepadamu (Muhammad) hingga kamu mengikuti agama/jalan hidup mereka” (QS al-Baqarah: 120).

(Syahrizal Musa/rz) (www.detikislam.com)

Sumber : www.eramuslim.com

Warga AS Tolak Perang dengan Iran

Warga AS Tolak Perang dengan Iran
Posted on 10 July 2008

Sekitar seratus orang aktivis anti-perang AS melakukan aksi unjuk rasa di depan gedung Kongres negara bagian Minnesota. Mereka menyatakan menentang rancangan undang-undang tentang seruan agar angkatan laut AS melakukan blokade terhadap Iran. Para pengunjuk rasa itu khawatir, tindakan tersebut akan memicu perang antara AS dan Negara Republik Islam Iran.

“Saat ini ada indikasi bahwa pemerintah ingin memulai perang dengan Iran. Dan mereka sedang merancang alasan untuk memulai perang serta membentuk opini publik agar siap menghadapi perang itu, ” kata Omeid Mohsseini-juru bicara aksi unjuk rasa-warga negara AS keturunan Iran.

Ia melanjutkan, “Dengan resolusi-resolusi baru ini, mereka akan memblokade kapal-kapal Iran, perdagangan, semuanya. Dan hal itu bisa memicu perang.”

Para aktivis anti-perang itu mendesak Senator Amy Klobuchar dan Norm Coleman, serta anggota Kongres Jim Ramstad menarik dukungan atas draft undang-undang yang saat ini sedang ditunda pembahasannya di Kongres AS. Draft tersebut diajukan oleh anggota DPR dan Senat AS, berisi seruan agar pemerintah AS menerapkan sanksi yang lebih berat pada Iran.
Salah butir draft bernomer H. Res 362, berisi desakan agar Presiden AS memperketat inspeksi pada semua orang, kendaraan, kapal-kapal, pesawat, kereta dan kargo yang menuju atau dari Iran.

Dalam aksi damai yang dikordinir oleh organisasi perdamaian lokal serta organisasi Woman Against Military Madness, putera Keith Ellison-Muslim AS pertama yang terpilih menjadi anggota Kongres-membacakan pernyataan dukungan dari ayahnya.

Sementara Mohssenini mengatakan, ia menentang konfrontasi AS dengan Iran baik sebagai orang Iran sekaligus warga negara Amerika. “Pertama, saya adalah orang Iran dan keluarga, sahabat serta kerabat saya masih tinggal di Iran dan saya sangat peduli dengan keselamatan mereka, ” tukas Mohsseini.

“Kedua, saya warga negara Amerika dan saya prihatin dengan kejahatan-kejahatan yang bisa dilakukan atas nama saya, seperti AS telah melakukannya di Irak, Afghanistan dan wilayah-wilayah lainnya, ” sambung Mohsseini.

Wakil dari para veteran perang dari Minneapolis, Andy Burman juga menentang perang dengan Iran. “Perang dengan Iran akan menjadi tragedi bagi rakyat AS dan bagi rakyat Iran. Perang itu juga akan memperburuk stabilitas perdamaian tidak hanya di Timur Tengah tapi juga seluruh dunia, ” kata Burman setelah memberikan orasinya.

Burman menuding Kongres dan pemerintahan Bush sedang berusaha membayar kekalahan mereka dalam perang di Irak, dengan mengobarkan perang lainnya dengan Iran.

Burman juga mengecam lembaga American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) yang ikut berperan dalam upaya mengobarkan perang dengan Iran. “Mereka (AIPAC) tidak mewakili keinginan kalangan Yahudi Amerika yang sangat menginginkan perdamaian, ” tukas Burman yang juga keturunan Yahudi. (ln/iol)

Sumber : Era Muslim

Iran 'targetkan Israel dan AS'

Iran 'targetkan Israel dan AS'


Iran menegaskan program nuklirnya untuk tujuan damai.


Iran akan menargetkan "jantung Israel" dan 32 pangkalan Amerika Serikat di kawasan Teluk jika kedua negara meluncurkan serangan ke Iran, kata seorang pejabat Iran.

Tanggapan Iran akan datang "sebelum debu dari sengan itu turun", kata Mojtaba Zolnour, wakil Pemimpin Tertinggi Ayatollah Ali Khamenei pada Pengawal Revolusioner.

Komentarnya itu disampaikan di tengah kekhawatiran bahwa Iran dapat diserang oleh Amerika Serikat dan Israel akibat program nuklir Teheran.

Iran juga mengkhawatirkan serangan setelah negara itu melakukan uji tembak peluru kendali yang mampu mencapai Israel pada awal pekan ini.

Teheran membantah klaim negara-negara Barat bahwa negara itu berusaha membangun senjata nuklir.

Iran berulang kali menolak desakan agar negara itu menghentikan pengayaan uranium, yang dapat digunakan sebagai bahan bakar pusat pembangkit listrik atau materi bagi senjata jika uranium dikayakan dengan lebih sempurna.

Uni Eropa menjatuhkan sanksi baru terhadap Iran pada bulan Juni.

Namun Uni Eropa juga menawarkan paket insentif guna membujuk Iran untuk menghentikan kegiatan pengayaan uranium.

Iran mengatakan negara itu siap untuk berunding dengan negara-negara adi daya di dunia, namun menegaskan pembicaraan harus membahas hak Iran memiliki tenaga nuklir.