Ancaman Golongan Ultra-Salafi Kepada Ummah

Libya's salafi-jihadist minority
by *Omar Ashour

 16 September 2012

DOHA -- “They are armed, I am not going to fight a losing battle and kill my men over a demolished shrine,” said Fawzi Abd al-‘Aali, the former Libyan interior minister, before he “resigned” last August.

He was referring to the armed Salafi groups that were accused of destroying Sufi shrines. One of the accused groups was the Ansar al-Shariah Brigade, which was quick to support the demolition, but denied any responsibility for it.
Ahmed Jibril, Libya's deputy ambassador to London, has now accused the Brigade, headed by Muhammed Ali Al-Zahawy, of perpetrating the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, which killed the American ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three other US personnel, as well as Libyan guards. Others have quickly embraced and promoted Jibril's allegation. But the picture is more complex.
The Brigade denied responsibility in a written statement, as well as in a brief interview with its spokesperson, who at the time was in charge of guarding Al Jala Hospital in Benghazi. Like its statement on the destruction of Sufi shrines, it denied involvement in the attack on the US Consulate, but stressed the gravity of the insult against the Prophet that putatively triggered it.
The Brigade attracted public attention last June as well, when around 300 armed members staged a rally in Benghazi, sparking outrage among Libyans. “We wanted to send a message to the General National Council members,” according to Hashim Al-Nawa, one of the Brigade's commanders. “They should not come near the Shariah. It should be above the constitution, and not an article for referendum.”
But was the Ansar al-Shariah Brigade really behind the attack on the US Consulate? The nature of Libya's post-revolution armed Islamist forces is by no means straightforward. Salafi jihadism is not an organization, but an ideological trend based on the core belief that armed tactics of all kinds are the most effective -- and, in some versions, the most legitimate -- method of bringing about social and political change.
Last year, its adherents did play an important role in the removal of Libya's brutal dictator, Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi. Many subsequently matured politically, revised their worldview, and shifted from armed to unarmed activism, forming political parties and contesting elections.
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, for example, has produced two main political parties. Al Watan (The Homeland) is led by former LIFG and Tripoli Military Council commander Abd al-Hakim Belhaj. The other, Al Umma al-Wasat (The Central Nation), is led by Sami al-Saadi, the group's former chief ideologist, and Abd al-Wahad Qaid, an LIFG military commander and the brother of the deceased al-Qaeda commander Hasan Qaid (Abu Yahya al-Libi). Both parties fared poorly in the election in July of a new General National Congress, with only Qaid winning a seat. Indeed, the GNC elections were in many ways a defeat for Libya's non-violent Salafi parties (such as Al Asala), as well as for the post-jihadists.
Other armed Islamist formations, including Salafi groups, accepted integration into Libya's new state institutions, such as the Supreme Security Committee (interior ministry) and the Libyan Shield Force (defense ministry). The National Guard, headed by the former LIFG deputy leader, Khaled al-Sharif, absorbed more than 30 brigades, mostly from the west and southwest.
But several armed formations, such as Ansar al-Shariah and the Imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abd al-Rahman Brigades, still reject the transition to party politics and integration into state institutions. These organizations are numerous, but small. Some were not invited -- or given sufficient incentive -- to join official bodies.
“Nobody asked us to join the army or the police,” Sufian bin Qumu, Ansar al-Shariah's commander in Derna and a former Guantánamo detainee, said in an interview last April. “They did not even give me or any of my men a reward for fighting.” Bin Qumu has a small paramilitary force training in the Bou Musafir forest on the outskirts of Derna. He insists that if the head of the boy scouts or the city's clan leaders asked him to disband the training camp, he would do so.
The tragic death of Stevens and his colleagues has engendered wide public outrage in Libya, adding to the isolation and de-legitimization of the armed groups. Dozens of Libyan activist groups have uploaded videos paying tribute to Stevens, as well as issuing statements against terrorism and al-Qaeda. One of the Muslim Brothers' websites includes such a statement, and Libya's Grand Mufti, Sheikh Sadeq al-Gheriani, also condemned the attack.
Two issues remain critical in Libya to prevent future tragedies. The first is the need to capitalize on public support and continue the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration process that started under the National Transitional Council but was never completed. Second, the government must enhance its communication strategy.
Arab Spring governments condemned the outrageous movie smearing the Prophet of Islam, but they should have stressed that American official and unofficial bodies had nothing to do with the film's production. Collective punishment and targeting the innocent is forbidden in the Quran in more than 20 verses: “That no burdened person [with sins] shall bear the burden [sins] of another” (The Star Chapter 53:18).

[*Omar Ashour is the director of the Middle East Graduate Studies Program at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center. He is the author of “The De-Radicalization of Jihadists: Transforming Armed Islamist Movements” and “Libyan Islamists Unpacked: The Rise, Transformation and Future.” He can be reached at O.Ashour@Exeter.AC.UK or @DrOmarAshour. © Project Syndicate 2012 ]


Catitan Sut

 Kita berada di zaman yang mana kebijaksanaan dipinggirkan, kelantangan yang disanjung.  Maka siapa yang lebih lantang, maka dialah yang lebih berani. siapa yang lebih berani, maka dia lah yang lebih benar. Persoalan apakah tindakan si pemberani itu bijaksana atau tidak sudah diperdulikan lagi, Aqidah sipemberani itu jernih' atau tidakpun sudah tidak dikira lagi.

Zaman kita adalah zaman pendemokrasian politik, sosial dan ilmu. Semua orang mempunyai hak untuk bersuara dalam politik, setiap orang mempunyai satu undi penentu, semada dia seorang penagih dadah atau dia seorang ilmuan yang sangat dihormati . Dalam urusan pimpinan bangsa yang sedemikian penting, tidak dinyatakan syarat yang hanya golongan dewasa yang mempunyai aqal yang sejahtera sahaja boleh membuat pilihan untuk bersuara.

Dalam sosial, semua rakyat mempunyai kebebasan untuk memilih corak hidup peribadinya dan hubungan sosialnya selagi tidak bertentangan dengan undang-undang negara.

Dalam bidang ilmu terutama ilmu agama, semua orang mempunyai hak dan kedudukan yang sama untuk menyatakan pandangan agama secara sendirian tanpa memerlu untuk menyadarkan fahaman kita kepada huraian authorities. 

Dalam suasana budaya ilmu yang sebegini, maka faham salafi memang mempunyai kelebihan berbanding dengan aliran tradisional. Golongan salafi mengajak ummat untuk terus berpegang kepada apa yang difahami daripada nas al-Quran dan sunnah tanpa perlu melalui huraian dan syarah oleh para ulama. Usaha untuk memahami ajaran agama dipermudahkan, tanpa diletak syarat-syarat yang menyusahkan. Tidak lagi perlu prerequisite yang perlu untuk memboleh seseorang memberi pandangan dalam mana-mana tajuk sesuka hatinya.

Kombinasi antara kaedah mudah dalam memahami agama dan semangat yang berkobar-kobar itulah yang menyemarakkan kembangnya aliran salafi. Lagipun memang jiwa  [nafsu] kita suka kita diangkat tinggi sehingga kita sendiri menilai yang kita memiliki kemampuan, seumpama imam-imam terdahulu. Apa lagi dengan kemudahan ICT. Contohnya ada Maktabah as-Shamilah yang membolehkan kita merujuk kepada mana-mana kitab hadith, kepada mana-mana tulisan yang masyhur dalam bidang-bidang yang kita ingini. Banyak lagi web-sites yang boleh kita manafaatkan.

Lagipun nafsu kita suka melihat yang kita berada tinggi di atas kebenaran, sementara orang-orang lain, termasuk ulama terdahulu itu berada di bawah  kebatilan dan bid'ah, walaupun mereka adalah ahli ilmu. Kita gelarkan diri kita sebagai salafi,  golongan yang mengambil terus dari generasi pertama Islam, bukan lagi melalui huraian ulama mazhab [walaupun kebanyakannya sangat terikat dengan huraian Syaikh al-Islam Ibnu Taimiyyah dan yang sealiran dengannya walaupun mereka ini hidup pada kurun 8 hijrah; jauh terkemudian daripada zaman ulama mazhab yang hidup lebih  awal ]

Kita gelarkan diri kita sebagai golongan al-athari, untuk mengisytiharkan kita berada di atas athar golongan awal Islam, terutama selepas ada ulama yang mengeritik penggunaan 'as-salafi' kepada kelompok yang hidup di kurun ke 15 hijrah, yang teramat jauh daripada zaman salaf.

Pihak lawan pula banyak memanggil golongan ini sebagai golongan Wahabi, untuk mengaitkan aliran ini dengan tokoh daripada Najd, Syaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab. Apa gelaran sekalipun, golongan ini mempamirkanpendirian  mereka berada di atas aqidah sebagaimana golongan salaf ummat ini berada. Iaitu berdasarkan huraian aqidah 3 serangkai, rububiyyah, uluhiyyah dan asma' wa sifat.

Jika kita bertanya mereka di kalangan ulama salaf, siapakah antara mereka yang menghuraikan aqidah di atas huraian 3 serangkai ini?. Adakah Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Imam at-Tahawi, Imam as-Asya'arie? Atau huraian 3 serangkai ini didapati terhurai dengan jelas hanyalah di zaman yang sangat terkemudian iaitu  dalam tulisan-tulisan Imam Ibn Taimiyyah?

Mereka segera menjawab "sekiranya kita tidak jumpai pun huraian seumpama ini dalam tulisan ulama di zaman awal Islam, tetapi pengajarannya telah terkandung di dalam al-Quran dan hadith". Kita boleh menerima jawaban mereka yang sedemikian, hanya sepatutnya janganlah mereka namakan huraian aqidah 3 serangkai itu adalah aqidah salaf.

Berdasarkan huraian aqidah yg sedemikian, mereka menuduh muslim lain hanya bertauhid dari aspek Rububiyyah tetapi syirik dari segi Uluhiyyah, menuduh mereka rosak aqidah Asma wa Sifat kerana menakwil atau menyerahkan kepada Allah makna ayat2 tentang Sifat Allah. Antara mereka , ada yang mengambil garis keras, bukan setakat mengeluarkan muslim daripada Islam, bahkan mereka menghalalkan nyawa dan harta mereka.Membunuh golongan muslim yang dituduh kafir oleh mereka itu adalah jihad bagi mereka, harta muslim lain itu dianggap ghanimah bagi mereka.

Apa yang berlaku di Somalia, Libya atau Daghestan adalah cerita yang berakar-umbi pada faham yang sama. Masyarakat ummah kita masih mempunyai elemen khawarij, yang dengan mudah mengkafirkan saudara-saudara seagama.

Di tempat kitapun benih-benih ke arah itu sudah bercambah, Dengan mudah tokoh-tokoh dari golongan ini mneyesatkan kumpulan lain, memanggil mereka sebagai agen yahudi (freemason atau seumpamanya), ahlu al-bid'ah, sufiyyah yang sesat.. Hanya sekarang ini mereka masih terselindung, masih segan untuk menyatakan fahaman mereka secara terang-terangan.