Monday, July 9, 2012

Al-Quran Sumber Kehidupan & Menjalani Impian


Is the Quran a ‘constitution’?

When Mohamed Morsi, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood, was declared the new president of Egypt last week, I felt relieved. This was the first free and fair presidential election Egypt had ever had, and fraud by the SCAF (Supreme Command of the Armed Forces) in favor of its preferred candidate, Ahmet Shafiq would have been a disaster. It would have shattered the Egyptian Revolution. Moreover, it could have pushed Egypt’s Islamists to a more militant path.

In other words, I welcome Mr. Morsi as the new president of Egypt. I very much hope that he will be a successful leader for his nation, and be able to “unite all Egyptians” as he promised in his inaugural speech.

However, for this to happen, both Mr. Morsi and his allies need to revise some of their longtime dreams and slogans. And one of them is a motto that Mr. Morsi repeated in one of his pre-election speeches: “The Quran is our constitution.”

This is a very popular motto among not just Muslim Brotherhood members but also all Islamist movements around the world. It implies an unbreakable commitment to the Muslim scripture, which is, of course, a virtue for all true believers.

However, Muslim believers should not only praise the Quran, but also be aware of what it says. And when we look at the Quran, we can see that it says nothing about being “the constitution” of any party or nation. In fact, on its very second page, in the second and third verses of Chapter Baqara, the Quran clearly says what it is:

“This Book, in which there is no doubt, is a guide to those who guard [against evil]. Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them.”

In other words, the Quran defines itself not as a constitution for a state, but “a guide” for individual believers. In fact, neither the word “constitution” nor “state” exists in the Quran, as the Muslim scripture contains no clear guidelines for any political structure.

When we look at the life of Prophet Muhammad, on the other hand, we do see a constitution: the so-called “Medina Constitution.” But this text was neither identical to the Quran, nor included any reference to it. It rather was a pact that the Prophet of Islam signed with the Jewish tribes in Medina, and it built the city on not Islam, but pluralism. “The Jews have their religion,” the text declared, “and the Muslims have theirs.”

In modern times, the Islamic Ottoman Empire proclaimed a constitution in 1876, and, again, it was neither identical to the Quran nor included any reference to it. It only stated, “Islam is the state religion,” and included many liberal clauses like these:

“All subjects of the empire are called Ottomans, without distinction whatever faith they profess… Every Ottoman enjoys personal liberty on condition of non-interference with the liberty of others. Personal liberty is wholly inviolable.”

In fact, the simplistic motto, “The Quran is our constitution,” was a post-Ottoman anomaly. Pious Muslims such as Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, felt the need to assert their faith in the face imperialist and secularist attacks on Islam. But their understandable passion led to confusion about religion and politics, and blurred the lines between the two.

Yet now is the time for the Muslim Brotherhood to rethink these matters and take a more democratic path. The Quran can certainly be a guide for every member of the Brotherhood. But the constitution of Egypt should be pluralist one that honors all citizens from all sorts of persuasions.

Excuse me, one second, Mr President!
Rachid Al-Ghannouchi says society should be able to mobilise to exact change without interference from the state, but how will this freedom affect freedom?
Ahmed Mahmoud , Tuesday 3 Jul 2012


The aura of holiness and admiration for people falls down when you see them breathe and speak in front of you and pulsing as they consist of flesh and blood...
This was my feeling when I met Rashid Al-Ghannouchi, the Tunisian Islamic thinker and leader of Al-Nadha political party, currently Tunisia's biggest party, during his quick visit to Al-Ahram newspaper upon  his  short stay in Cairo to congratulate Mohamed Morsi for winning the Egyptian presidency.
There is no doubt that the man is a real thinker, to be among people, to tell them his thoughts and visions on Islam.
He is confident that the time of normalisation with Israel is now gone. He is delighted that as he sees it, Arabs have escaped the western grip after the Arab Spring, which would have not succeeded, he says, were it not for the economic crisis the West is now facing.
Instead of being proud simply of the Tunisian revolution, we find him actually proud of our revolution in Egypt, and we also notice his worry about its success as he believes that what happens in Egypt will affect the whole region.
Though he calls for a harmony among the Tunisian revolutionary forces to reconstruct the state, he insists on the exclusion of those who worked with the former regime. Here, he is speaking about Tunisia, but perhaps about Egypt too.
As old regime imposed violence on the people, he thinks transitional justice is necessary, to revive the country without being mobilised by one group or political party.
What Al-Ghannouchi says demands to be thought about and analysed, not only because it is bold, but also because it needs to be interpreted.
When he says that man tends to “deism,” he means that given the opportunity, man always tends towards tyranny. It would mean that the new president could becomes a tyrant, as this is man's natural behavior, and so care and vigilance is necessary.
Also, how can we guarantee that the new president who himself suffered persecution as he was a member of 'the banned group', not use the same means against his opposition?
I asked Al-Ghannouchi, "Sir, you say that there is chaos, that sit-ins should be dealt with harshly by the state to maintain order – is this not similar to the former regime's methods?"
I continued my question: "Don’t you think that we need to change the mentality of the security state? To allow a little chaos so that people can express their needs and problems against tyranny?"
The old man looked at me for quite some time, but appearing deep in thought, did not answer.
A colleague asked him about the fact that some members of religious groups harass women in the streets to pressure them to follow a certain lifestyle and style of dress.
He answered that, it is not the role of the state to impose a lifestyle, a uniform or a way of thinking; this is a part of individual liberties.
He added quickly, however, that this is the role of society to mobilise and propagate its ideas, without any interference of the state.
As if a stone hit my head, I imagined these people the commanders of goodness, the forbidders of the evil roaming the streets to impose their will upon the women, men, boys and girls.
I woke up from my thoughts after the meeting ended and I had a great wish to say to him, “Excuse me Mr. President,” and suggest that maybe he is right that the state should not impose a specific point of view on people, and to allow social mobililisation take its turn, and time, to develop the state, but also the role of the state is to protect the liberty, freedom of expression, doctrines and thoughts.
“Excuse me Mr. President,” and then say that the battle for freedom is what brought him here, on these chairs, “excuse me Mr. President,” and tell him he has to protect this freedom before all their seats are lost suddenly in the name of social mobilisation.
I looked at him, and he left before I was able to say to him, “Excuse me Mr. President... ”

Catitan Sut:

"Al-Quran dusturuna" - Adalah ungkapan Imam Hassan al-Banna yang diterjemahkan sebagai 'Al-Quran adalah perlembagaan kami'.

Perlembagaan (constitution) adalah istilah politik; yang dimaksudkan dengan 'constitution' dalam politik semasa adalah  undang-undang tertinggi bagi sesuatu pemerentahan. Tiada peraturan di dalam negara tersebut yang dapat mengatasi atau menyalahi constitution-nya . Begitupun butiran perlembagaan boleh dipinda, dimansukh atau ditambah mengikut kesesuaian oleh badan tertinggi penggubal undang-undang pemerentahan tersebut, dalam kebanyakan halnya badan itu adalah parlimen .

Bagi muslim sudah tentu al-Quran bukanlah perlembagaan sebagaimana pengertiannya dalam politik dan hal-hal kenegaraan. Al-Quran bukan sahaja menjadi pertunjuk dan rujukan bagi kawalan luaran manusia, yakni yang kita sebut sebagai undang-undang atau peraturan bagi amalan diri kita, keluarga kita dan masyarakat kita; bahkan al-Quran adalah pertunjuk dan rujukan bagi kepercayaan kita, keyakinan kita, nilai serta citarasa kita dan ilmu kebenaran kita yang kemucak.

Adapun apa yang disebut sebagai 'Sahifah al-Madinah' / Perlembagaan Madinah itupun terlalu sukar untuk diterima sebagai 'perlembagaan'; sebelum kita mengikut bahas ulama tentangkesahihan  riwayat Sahifah itu sendiri. Katakan kita terima ianya sebagai adanya, iannya masih sukar dikatakan ianya perlembagaan. Sekiranya ianya diterima sebagai perlembagaan , maka kita menerima ianya adalah undang-undang tertinggi bagi pemerentahan di zaman itu. Maka perlulah kita bertanya: "apakah terdapat riwayat yang menunjukkan Rasulullah Sollahu 'alaihi wasallam merujuk kepada Sahifah tersebut selepas ianya dilembagakan?". "Adakah para khulafa ar-Rashidin atau khulafa yang datang kemudiannya merujuk kepada Sahifah ini sebagai sumber perundangan?". Atau paling kurang adalah riwayat yang para khulafa yang datang kemudian telah membentuk 'perlembagaan' masing-masing dengan butiran yang sesuai dengan keadaan dan zaman mereka masing-masing, seumpama Sahifah Madinah sesuai dengan zaman awal Madinah.

Bahkan Sahifah Madinah  lebih jelas berfungsi sebagai perjanjian pertahanan Madinah secara bersama.  Ianya adalah perjanjian khusus untuk tujuan itu dan bukannya 'perlembagaan' yang berfungsi sebagai dokumen undang-undang tertinggi dan sumber peraturan yang diadakan.

Kesepakatan ummah dengan  jelasnya menyebut bahawa punca rujukan peraturan/hukum Islam itu adalah 4, al-Quran, Sunnah, ijma dan qiyas.Begitulah semenjak zaman Madinah, pentadbiran Islam   kukuh bertapak tanpa perlembagaan bertulis. Kalaulah ada himpunan peraturan secara resmi sekalipun itupun adalah qanun bukan dustur.  Qanun lebih merupakan manual hukum dan peraturan yang diterima-pakai oleh pemerentah untuk penyelarasan perlaksanaan hukum dan peraturan di dalam kawasan taaluknya.

Hanyalah selepas ummah terdedah kepada peradaban barat modern, maka timbul keinginan dan tuntutan agar pemerentahan Islam mempunyai perlembagaan sebagai-mana negara-negara di barat. Perlembagaan adalah istilah dan konsep barat.

Kita sebagai ummah berpegang yang al-Quran adalah kalam Allah, mengatasi mana-mana kalam makhluk. Kita berdoa agar al-Quran menyinari hati-hati kita, kehidupan kita, kegelapan alam kubur kita dan kehidupan kita di akhirat.Sehingga al-Quran menjadi sebati dengan kehidupan kita. Rasulullah Sollahu alaihi wasallam disifatkan yang akhlaq baginda adalah al-Quran.

Adapun artikel kedua tentang impian dan kenyataan adalah dua perkara yang berbeza. Kita impikan keadilan dan kebebasan tetapi tidak semestinya kita akan berlaku adil dan memberi kebebasan.  Kita marahkan media yang dikongkong oleh pihak tertentu, tetapi akhbar milik kitapun kita kawal agar tidak diserapi oleh kenyataan yang merugikan kita. Kita juga mungkin sekiaranya berkuasa akan bertindak terhadap kumpulan yang bertindak di luar garis peraturan negara, sedangkan sebelumnya ada juga aktiviti kita yang berada di luar garis peraturan resmi pihak berkuasa.

Dalam kehidupan peribadi dikatakan 'niat seoarang mukmin itu lebih baik daripada amalannya'. Niat kita memang luhur, untuk mencari reda Allah, tetapi amalan kita mungkin sahaja tidak memenuhi segala syarat dan rukun sesuatu amalan. Atau niat luhur kita dihempap oleh ria', sam'ah yang memakai topeng berwajahkan menyebarkan dan menguar-uarkan kebaikan. 

Agak senang untuk menulis buku atau berucap tentang amalan kebaikan, tetapi terlalu sukar untuk hidup berdasarkan kandungan buku yang kita tulis atau ucapan yang kita sampaikan. Imam an-Nawawi mendatangkan perkataan Imam Abu Yazid al-Bistami dalam 'Bustanu al-Ariffin yang Abu Yazid mengatakan dia menjadi penempa (haddad) selama 12 tahun [untuk membentuk akhlak dan pekerti yang baik], selama 5 tahun untuk menilik cermin [ untuk menilik secara halus keadaan kerohanian dan urusan hatinya agar sentiasa ikhlas kepada Allah], setahun antara urusan kedua pekerjaan tersebut, kemudian beliau menyedari terdapat bekung yang membelit di pinggangnya, dan beliau mengambil masa 5 tahun untuk membuka bekung tersebut [bekung i'timad hati selain daripada Allah serta beramal untuk tujuan mencapai maqamat dan kelebihan].

Sekiranya di dalam hidup perseoranganpun begitu susah, bagaimana agaknya kesukaran dalam mengendali kehidupan ummah yang lebih kompleks?. Semoga Allah jauhkan kita daripada kegilaan mahu menjadi pemimpin dan pengejar pangkat.

1 comment:

  1. MasyaAllah !,

    Catatan sut yang mencerahkan.

    Konstitunalisma adalah suatu yang telah dipaksakan keatas Daulah Uthmaniyyah sehinggalah sampai kesatu tahap Sulthan Abdul Hamid rahmatuLlah 'alaih mengenepikannya kerana sedar bahawa ianya adalah semata-mata merupakan sebahagian dari mainan agenda Imperialis untuk melahirkan kaum anti-sunnah.

    Nampaknya kanun kehidupan Nubuwwah, yakni; Al-Qur'an Al-Hakim, As-Sunnah, Ijma' dan Qias, terus tenggelam dan diketepikan semata-mata kerana jiwa-jiwa sedang ghairah mencari kuasa politik di masakini.

    InnaliLlaahi wainna iLaihi roji'uun !