by Sayyid Qutb 

It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system. This was not the case when it first appeared in the world, nor will it be today or in the future. Jahiliyyah, to whatever period it belongs, is Jahiliyyah; that is, deviation from the worship of One Allah and the way of life prescribed by Allah.

It derives its system and laws and regulations and habits and standards and values from a source other than Allah. On the other hand, Islam is submission to Allah, and its function is to bring people away from Jahiliyyah towards Islam. Jahiliyyah is the worship of some people by others; that is to say, some people become dominant and make laws for others, regardless of whether these laws are against Allah's injunctions and without caring for the use or misuse of their authority.

Islam, on the other hand, is people's worshipping Allah alone, and deriving concepts and beliefs, laws and regulations from the authority of Allah, and freeing themselves from the servitude to Allah's servants. This is the very nature of Islam and the nature of its role on earth.

Islam cannot accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah. Either Islam will remain, or Jahiliyyah; no half-half situation is possible. Command belongs to Allah, or otherwise to Jahiliyyah; Allah's Shari'ah will prevail, or else people's desires: "And if they do not respond to you, then know that they only follow their own lusts. And who is more astray than one who follows his own lusts, without guidance from Allah? Verily! Allah guides not the people who are disobedient." [28:50];

"Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm faith" [5:50].

The foremost duty of Islam is to depose Jahiliyyah from the leadership of man, with the intention of raising human beings to that high position which Allah has chosen for him. This purpose is explained by Raba'i Bin 'Amer, when he replied to the Commander in Chief of the Persian army, Rustum. Rustum asked, "For what purpose have you come?" Raba'i answered," Allah has sent us to bring anyone who wishes from servitude to men into the service of Allah alone, from the narrowness of this world into the vastness of this world and the Hereafter, from the tyranny of religions into the justice of Islam."

Sayyid Qutb (rahimuAllaah) was hanged by the Egyptian government on August 29, 1966.

You can read Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki's thoughts on Sayyid Qutb's work "In the Shade of the Qur'an" here.

I also encourage everyone to check out this post on Sayyid Qutb by sister Marryam Haleem.

Here is an excerpt from Qutb's tafsir of Surat Al-Burooj from "In the Shade of the Qur'an," translated by Adil Salahi.

"Reference to the event starts with a declaration of anger with the tyrants: "Slain be the people of the pit." (Verse 4) It also gives an impression of the enormity of the crime which has invoked the displeasure and anger of God, the All-Clement, and which makes Him threaten the perpetrators. We then have a description of the pit: "The fire abounding in fuel." (Verse 5) The literal meaning of 'pit' is a hole in the ground, but the surah defines it as 'the fire' instead of using the term 'trench' or 'hole' in order to give an impression that the whole pit was turned into a blazing furnace.

"The perpetrators aroused God's wrath for the evil crime they committed: "When they sat around it, watching what they did to the believers." (Verses 6-7) They sat over the fire, in the actual vicinity of the horror, watching the various stages of torture, and madly enjoying the burning of human flesh in order to perpetuate in their minds this ghastly scene.

"The believers had not committed any crime or evil deed against them: "They took vengeance on them for no reason other than that they believed in God, the Almighty, to whom all praise is due, to whom the dominion of the heavens and the earth belongs. But God is witness of all things." (Verses 8-9) That was their only crime: they believed in God Almighty who deserves praise for every situation even though ignorant people do not do so. He is the Lord who deserves to be worshiped, the sole sovereign of the kingdoms of the heavens and the earth. As He witnesses all things He has witnessed what the tyrants did to the believers. This verse reassures the believers and delivers a powerful threat to the tyrants. God has been a witness and He suffices for a witness.

"The narration of the event is completed in a few short verses which charge our hearts with a feeling of repugnance towards the terrible crime and its evil perpetrators. They also invite us to contemplate what lies beyond the event, its importance in the sight of God and what it has aroused of God's wrath. It is a matter which is not yet completed. Its conclusion lies with God.

"As the narration of the event concludes we feel overwhelmed by the magnificence of faith as it exalts the believers and attains its triumph over all hardships, and indeed over life itself. We feel the elevation of the believers as they rid themselves fo the handicaps of human desire and worldly temptation. The believers could easily have saved their lives by accepting the tyrants' terms. But what a loss humanity as a whole would have incurred! How great the loss would have been had they killed that sublime concept of the worthlessness of life without faith, its ugliness without freedom and its baseness when tyrants are left free to exercise their tyranny over people's souls after they have exercised it over their bodies. But they have won a very noble and sublime concept while the fire burned their flesh. Their noble concept has triumphed as it was purified by the fire. They will, later on, have their reward from God and their tyrannical enemies will have their retribution. The surah then goes on to explain both.......

"With this conclusion justice is restored and the whole question is finally resolved. What has taken place on earth is no more than one part; the matter remains unfinished here. This is the fact emphasized by this initial comment on the pit event, so that it may be fully comprehended by the few believers who have accepted the faith in Makkah, and by every group of believers subjected to trial and tyranny during any period of history."

A translation of In the Shade of the Qur'an covering the last 30th (Juz' 'Amma) can be read here.

May Allaah (swt) accept Sayyid Qutb as a martyr forgive him any mistakes, sins and shortcomings.  May Allaah (swt) show his mercy to all the Muslims and to all of the oppressed during the blessed month of Ramadan.

"Mankind today is on the brink of a precipice, not because of the danger of complete annihilation which is hanging over its head - this being just a symptom and not the real disease - but because humanity is devoid of those vital values which are necessary not only for its healthy development but also for its real progress. Even the Western world realises that Western civilization is unable to present any healthy values for the guidance of mankind. It knows that it does not possess anything which will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence." (p. 7)

"It is essential for mankind to have new leadership." (p. 7)

This argument seems to me to be overly simplistic. Although it is good to hold up moral and spiritual values in our downward sloping societies, to say there are no values at all that we can hold on to is premature.  Not everything about the West is dire or decadent. There are some nihilistic tendencies in the West, but there is still a greater tendency, I think, to common sense and decency among the people. It depends on where you look. In some cases, religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism prop up the moral or ethical outlook.  However, I think it is also true, that people not connected with organized religion have the innate ability to perceive truth and morality which are the "values" Qutb seems to be referring to here. 

"It is necessary for the new leadership to preserve and develop the material fruits of the creative genius of Europe, and also to provide mankind with such high ideals and values as have so far remained undiscovered by mankind, and which will also acquaint humanity with a way of life which is harmonious with human nature, which is positive and constructive, and which is practicable." (p. -8-)

"Islam is the only system which possesses these values and this way of life." (p. -8-)

Actually, although I find this statement flawed, I do have some sympathy towards it. After all, I was at one time a conservative Christian, steeped in the religion, believing that Christianity was the only hope for the world. It seems natural to me that people who accept a religion by faith, and have invested that religion with all their faith, would come to this conclusion. But just because it is understandable, does not mean that it is correct or true.  All people have the ability to connect with God and the values he might teach.  It's part of our being human.

I believe the time has come for all our religions to admit that those outside the church, the synagogue, or mosque are people that God alone will judge. Believers are not right to judge. In fact, in Christianity at least, Christ's injunction - "Do not judge, and you will not be judged" (Luke 6:37) - seems to refer to this situation. Also, one could make a case that early in the Book of Genesis, if one interprets that book typologically, that people like Seth and Abel were saved by God without any special membership in a community of believers.

It may be that, on occassion, it makes sense to oppose someone if their sins or their intention to continue in sin is endangering others. But even granting that we should oppose such a one, this does not give us the authority to judge their eternal status with God. God may know things that we do not.

And it could be added that the Apostle Paul said that some who do not have the law, "do instinctively the things of the Law," (Romans 2:14)  meaning that those outside of the main faiths may also have some perception of God. 

"If Islam is again to play the role of the leader of mankind, then it is necessary that the Muslim community be restored to its original form." (p. 9)

Reformers of Islam have always taken this approach. But whether this is helping Muslims truly is still up for debate.

I'm not saying it's wrong to go back to the Qur'an to try to renew and revive the religion. Going back to the original sources may actually be healthy.  I'm just saying that that's not all that has to be done in this world.  People of faith should know that faith alone cannot solve all problems.  There must be works also.  And those works should probably include the political, economic, social and intellectual realms. Without paying attention to those areas, the well being of the people is still not provided for. And if there's nothing to eat, you have strife and division. You have fighting over resources, civil wars, etc. - which are already happening in Rwanda and Sudan. And in Sudan, Muslims are fighting other Muslims over resources. To my mind, you have to start moving toward a sustainable economy.  Without these things, calling only on faith is just stoking the flames. 

"Only in the Islamic way of life do all men become free from the servitude of some men to others and devote themselves to the worship of God alone, deriving guidance from Him alone, and bowing before Him alone. ..." (p.11)

"This is that vital message of which mankind does not know." (p. 11)

"This religion is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all the worlds. It means a challenge to all kinds and forms of systems which are based on the concept of the sovereignty of man; in other words, where man has usurped the Divine attribute. Any system in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the sources of all authority are human, deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men. This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out - those who by themselves devise laws for others to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves. In short, to proclaim the authority and sovereignty of God means to eliminate all human kingship and to announce the rule of the Sustainer of the universe over the entire earth." (pp. 57-58)

To be sure, this position is extreme.  It basically abolishes all forms of authority.  If I understand it correctly, one of the reasons Islam was given was because of the lawless situation which engulfed the tribes of Arabia at the time of Muhammad's teaching.  In addition, to abolish all authority would leave no visible presence of authority in the world, making relating to God's authority that much more unimaginable.  Authority is commonplace. It's in families, it's in our places of work. Saying "sir" or "maam" is a form of acknowledging authority.  The idea is not to abolish authority but to practice it truly and for the benefit of those who live under it.  It means those in positions of power should serve benevolently and not lord it over those who are under them. 

And it should be remembered that communism also made great claims in the prior century, but the reality was always tyranny.  Someone is always wielding the authority on behalf of the many but without becoming responsible themselves.

"It is necessary that there should be a vanguard which sets out with this determination and then keeps walking on the path, marching through the vast ocean of Jahiliyyah which has encompassed the entire world. ..." (p. 12)

"It is necessary that this vanguard should know the landmarks and the milestones of the road toward this goal so that they may recognize the starting place, the responsibilities and the ultimate purpose of this long journey." (p. 12)

Immediately after setting up this great goal of eradicating subservience, Qutb introduces "a vanguard" that is going to take us there. Is this vanguard later going to place into servitude those who end up following it?

"The people ought to know that Islam means to accept the creed 'La ilaha illa Allah' in its deepest sense, which is this: that every aspect of life should be under the sovereignty of God, and those who rebel against God's sovereignty and usurp it for themselves should be opposed;..." (p. 35)

This legal formulation is based on the principle that Islam - that is, submission to God - is a universal Message which the whole of mankind should accept or make peace with. No political system or material power should put hindrances in the way of preaching Islam. It should leave every individual free to accept or reject it, and if someone wants to accept it, it should not prevent him or fight against him. If someone does this, then it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is killed or until he declares his submission." (p. 57)

And here's the crucial passage. To put it simply, if anyone opposes Islam or the spread of Islam he must be killed. This seems to set up something of a vicious circle. People are opposing Islam because they believe they are preventing violently disposed groups, and then the Muslim "vanguard" so-to-speak is killing those in authority because they believe they are standing in the way.  This is the cycle of violence that is killing the Middle East.

Also, the way I see it, there seems to be more worry here about being free to accept Islam than there is about being free not to accept it.  In some Muslim countries, isn't it a crime to turn away from Islam after one has already accepted it?  If I'm not wrong, it's a crime punishable by death.  Why is that?  If you defend conscience, shouldn't you defend it even if someone chooses a position different from your own?

"No doubt the Shari'ah is best since it comes from God; the laws of His creatures can hardly be compared to the laws given by the Creator. But this point is not the basis of the Islamic call. The basis of the message is that one should accept the Shari'ah without any question and reject all other laws in any shape or form. This is Islam. There is no other meaning of Islam. One who is attracted to this basic Islam has already resolved this problem; he will not require any persuasion through showing its beauty and superiority. This is one of the realities of the faith." (p. 36)

"The only principle on which the totality of human life is to be based is God's religion and its system of life. If this principle is absent, the very first pillar of Islam - that is, bearing witness to - 'La ilaha ila Allah, Muhammadar Rasul Allah' - will not be established nor its real influence felt. Unless this principle is accepted without any question and followed faithfully, the complete submission to God as taught by the Messenger of God - peace be on him - cannot be fulfilled." (p. 84)

"To establish God's rule means that His laws be enforced and that the final decision in all affairs be according to these laws." (p. 58)

Qutb calls the Shari'ah "the Divine Law" of God. As such, he says it must be accepted in whole, entirely by faith, no questions asked. This is actually his definition of Islam. "There is no other meaning of Islam," according to Qutb.  So instead of putting men in the position of God, according to his argument, he has put the Shari'ah there instead.  I hope this is not too controversial to say.  I've read that for many Muslims the Shari'ah is like the glue which holds Islam together. 

"What kind of a man is it who, after listening to the commandment of God and the Traditions of the Prophet - peace be on him - and after reading about the vents which occurred during the Islamic Jihaad, still thinks that it is a temporary injunction related to transient conditions and that it is concerned only with the defense of the borders?

"In the verse giving permission to fight, God has informed the Believers that the life of this world is such that checking one group of people by another is the law of God, so that the earth may be cleansed of corruption. Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they are oppressed, and God is able to help them. These are the people who were expelled from their homes without cause, except that they said that our Lord is God. Had God not checked one people by another, then surely synagogues and churches and mosques would have been pulled down, where the name of God is remembered often.' Thus, this struggle is not a temporary phase but an eternal state...." (pp. 64-65)

This passage is complex because, as I see it, it was also the view of the Old Testament when God told the Hebrews to make war against the Canaanites. God wanted Israel to eliminate the Canaanites because they were so sinful.  Specific crimes like child sacrifice and fertility cults were named.  Later, in the Minor Prophets, God sent judgments on the nations surrounding Israel because of these reasons, as well as unjust wars and brutal killings of innocent people! 

In the settling of the United States, we might remember, Americans viewed the Native Americans as morally inferior, and almost eradicated them completely. Was this justified? When is it right to view another people as morally inferior and when is it not? Don't peoples always view other peoples, other groups, as inferior to themselves? And doesn't this throw into doubt their ability, by themselves, to determine when it is right to do this and when it is not?  I suppose it happens when it must - take the example of fascism - but how and why it should happen all the time is something much more difficult to determine.

"It means to be above all the powers of the earth which have deviated from the way of the Faith, above all the values of the earth not derived from the source of the Faith, above all the customs of the earth not colored with the coloring of the Faith, above all the laws of the laws (sic) of the earth not sanctioned by the Faith, and above all traditions not originating in the Faith.

"It means to feel superior to others when weak, few and poor, as well as when strong, many and rich." (p. 141)

"This message relieves him from both dejection and grief, these two feelings being natural for a human being in this situation. It relieves him of both, not merely through patience and steadfastness, but also through a sense of superiority from whose heights the power of oppression, the dominant values, the current concepts, the standards, the rules, the customs and habits, and the people steeped in error, all seem low." (p. 142)

Finally, there is no place for feeling "superior" in religion. There might be confidence or gratitude.  There might be excitement when worshipping with people from all over the globe.  There may even be pride, although in English that word has other connotations. What I don't get is that they would somehow feel superior.  To me, religion is instituted for other reasons than to feel superior.

And I wonder if this passage on superiority may tell us something about the author, his comparative newness to his religious outlook, and his experience at the hands of his Egyptian torturers. It's surely tragic, but I can easily see how his experiences of torture could have affected his opinions about "feeling superior."  Here we must have some sympathy for Qutb, but we should not be made to think that being "superior" is the best there is.

I want to make clear here, too, that although I am criticizing Qutb, I am not trying to criticize in any way the Islamic religion. I'm not sure that all my statements are so peace-oriented, but I'm not sure what else I can say.  I am new to studying Islam, and I ask foregiveness if I have said anything that is destructive to anyone's faith.  I hope my comments will not be interpreted as against a religion which has inspired billions of people for many centuries and, hopefully, will continue to do so for many more.

**********

See Milestones, by Seyyid Qutb. -- Damascus, Syria: Dar al-Ilm, [1964]. I purchased this book new at a  bookstore in Hyde Park, Chicago, Illinois. It is probably also available through Amazon. It's 160 pages.

Another book which I would like to read soon is - From Secularism to Jihad: Sayyid Qutb and the Foundations of Radical Islamism, by Adnan A. Musallam. -- s.l.: Praeger Publishers, 2005.

Padahal kedamaian, kemakmuran dunia dan perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan yang spektakular sesudah masa Yunani (Aristo-Plato) terjadi pada kurun kejayaan Islam (abad 8-15). Sedangkan masa kejayaan Barat (abad 18-21) banyak ditandai oleh peperangan (Perang Dunia I-II Perang Dingin) dan penindasan kemanusiaan. Mungkin, kesalahpahaman itu tidak hanya terjadi pada agama atau ideologi tertentu, tetapi juga terjadi pada tokoh-tokoh yang mengusung agama atau ideologi itu sendiri.

selengkapnya

“…Whenever I look to the effects of Ibn Taymiyyah and the effects of Sayyid Qutb on Earth, I come to realize the meaning of {“A good word is like good tree whose root is firmly fixed, and its branches reach to the sky, giving its fruit at all times by the Leave of its Lord…”} [Ibrahim; 24]

Ibn Taymiyyah died in prison in the year 726 H. His books were burned up, and he and Ibn al-Qayyim were paraded around the streets of Damascus with the neighborhood children mocking and clapping behind them. Ibn Taymiyyah would sometimes write in prison, so they took away his pen and paper. So, he began writing on the walls of his cell using a rock. This treatise of ‘al-Hamawiyyah’ or ‘at-Tadmuriyyah’ was copied down from the walls of his prison cell. Ibn Taymiyyah died in 726 H, and the the scholars who competed with him thought that they were finally rid of him. He died in 726 H, and after exactly four centuries, someone emerged in the belly of the Arabian Peninsula who loved the books of Ibn Taymiyyah and learned from them, and he was Shaykh Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab. Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab was expelled from ad-Dar’iyyah to here and there, to Iraq, etc. Afterwards, he returned, and Allah softened the heart of Muhammad bin Sa’ud towards him and he agreed to aid his mission, and he did so.

The whole world went crazy, and they moved Ibrahim Basha the son of Muhammad ‘Ali Basha, and a Syrio-Egyptian army moved to tear apart thisda’wah and wipe it out from Najd, and they took its leader ‘Ubaydullah bin Sa’ud and imprisoned him. Afterwards, the people thought that this da’wahwas finished. About fifty years ago, one of Muhammad bin Sa’ud’s sons, ‘Abd al-’Aziz, took over as leader. During the days of ‘Abd al-’Aziz, the people would wander from place to place until they could find just a tiny date to eat. One of the inhabitants of Najd told me: “One day during the famine, we would dig up ant hills and collect and eat the wheat that the ants would gather. We were unable to eat dates on a daily basis, and we’d have to eat the date one day, and suck on the seed of that date the next.”

They would also take the vines on which the dates grew and wash them. So, the people of Najd would all come with their containers and vessels to collect some of the wash of these date vines. Allah then Willed that petroleum would be discovered inside the Arabian Peninsula, and this country began printing the books of Ibn Taymiyyah - printing and distributing, printing and distributing - and not a single library in the world was left except that it contained Ibn Taymiyyah’s books. Today, if you wish to silence someone, you simply say ‘Ibn Taymiyyah said such and such,’ and the person is silenced: {“A good word is like good tree whose root is firmly fixed, and its branches reach to the sky, giving its fruit at all times by the Leave of its Lord…”}

Sayyid Qutb was the same way. He was executed in prison, not in the street. They executed him inside the prison in a dark room, and nobody knows where his grave is until now. His own family doesn’t know where he is buried. One of his old friends said to me: “If only we knew where his grave is so that we can visit him…” So, I said to him: “His Lord does, you don’t need to know.” The day that Sayyid was executed, six to eight thousand copies of ‘Fi Dhilal al-Qur’an’ were burned in the main streets, in other words 64,000 volumes of the book were burned. Anyone in Egypt who was found possessing any of Sayyid Qutb’s books - especially ‘Ma’alim fit-Tariq’ - was sentenced to ten years in prison. Sayyid’s books were treated like opium! They were actually like opium! They were warned against in the same way that marijuana was warned against.

When Sayyid Qutb was executed, the ‘Voice of the Arabs’ broadcast that he had been executed because he wanted to kill Umm Kulthum and destroy charitable organizations and the radio stations that broadcast the Qur’an, and because he had contacts with Western intelligence, that he was an American agent, a Western agent, etc. So, the announcer on the ‘Voice of the Arabs’ show, Ahmad Sa’id - I heard him myself, and may he go to Hell, and what an evil destination - would say regarding Sayyid Qutb: “To Hell, and what an evil destination.”

That generation began asking itself: ‘Who is this man who was executed? What is this book ‘Ma’alim fit-Tariq’ and this book ‘Fi Dhilal al-Qur’an’ that he was sentenced for?’ So, everyone began looking for these books to read them. This happened to the point that a failing Christian publishing company in Beirut was advised by other Christians: “If you want to save your company, print ‘Fi Dhilal al-Qur’an.’” Yes, and he did so, and in the same year that Sayyid Qutb was executed, the book was printed seven times. Seven times! And during his life, it was only printed one and a half times - they did not even complete the second printing. Everyone who read Sayyid Qutb’s books returned to Allah and was affected by him, and the curse of Allah came down on those who had prevented people from reading them before. While they used to pound and whistle and jump up and down in the streets while his books were being burned, you now do not find a group of Muslims on Earth except that his books are with them, as they have been translated into almost every language…”

['Fi Dhilal Surat at-Tawbah'; p. 242-243]

Sh. Saalih Al Fawzaan Praises Sh. Rabee's Refutation Of  Sayyid Qutb

The Shaikh criticises the tafsir of Qutb and explains that he merely spoke by personal opinion, being only a writer, not a person of knowledge. Also highlights his errors in his interpretation of Tawheed.

Dikotomi antara 'Muslim setengah-setengah' dan 'Muslim Sejati' (islamisme, islam pergerakan) yang cenderung radikal berdasarkan pemikiran Abul Ala Maududi dan Sayyid Qutb. Kemudian membahas tentang Hizbut Tahrir dan pemikiran pendirinya, Taqiuddin Nabhani yang mencakup porsi cukup banyak, hampir dua pertiga isi buku. Karena menurut pengakuan pengarangnya aktif di gerakan ini. Sesekali diselipkan juga sejarah munculnya pergerakan tersebut; Jama'ah Islamiyah, Ikhwanul muslimin dan Hizbut Tahrir serta biografi sedikit para pendirinya.

Simak kutipan tulisan dalam rangka perjalanan spiritual pengarangnya, misalnya mengenai masa-masa bergabung dengan Hizbut Tahrir:
"....Muslim yang saleh biasanya menghindari mengucapkan kata-kata kotor, tetapi di Hizbut Tahrir hal itu menjadi kebiasaan ketika berdebat dengan para Islamis, mengutuk kuffar.." (hal 132)

Sedikit menyinggung ideologi kristen di hal 249:
"Dan keseluruhan ide tentang trinitas, meskipun sekuat tenaga berusaha kupahami, selalu terlihat aneh bagiku."

Pengakuan jujurnya yang mungkin bisa juga sebagai introspeksi bagi kita semua:
"Karena begitu berkomitmen penuh pada islam dan umat Muslim serta sangat berkeinginan mewujudkan pemerintahan yang berdasarkan pada al Quran, aku malah tak menyentuh kitab sucinya sama sekali." (hal. 250)

Tentang Wahhabi dan Arab Saudi:
"Wahhabi adalah mazhab yang sangat literer. Metafora, alegoris, cinta dan pemahaman yang diluar pengertian manusia tidak berarti bagi mereka. Mereka benar-benar kasar kepada orang-orang islam yang mengungkapkan cinta dan dedikasinya kepada Nabi Muhammad. Bagi Wahhabi, hal itu hampir menyerupai ibadah dan karenanya menjurus kepada musyrik." (hal. 314)

Halaman berikutnya mengupas sejarah kemunculan Wahhabi yang berdarah-darah, penuh dengan pembantaian.
"Mereka tidak hanya membunuh orang-orang islam dari kalangan Sufi dan Syi'ah, tetapi dengan sengaja bermaksud membinasakan siapa saja yang mempunyai hubungan darah dengan Nabi Muhammad, yang ditempat itu dikenal sebagai sayyid atau Ashraf."(hal. 316)
Berbagai kritik blak-blakan lainnya terhadap kehidupan sosial, politik, hijab dan seksualitas di negeri Arab Saudi patut diacungi jempol.

Kekhawatiran terbesar terhadap terbentuknya negara islam sebagai berikut:
"...sebagian besar umat islam tahu bahwa Islam syi'ah memisahkan diri dari Islam Sunni yang menjadi arus utama disebabkan perang saudara dalam tubuh agama kita. Detail sejarah dari peristiwa ini adalah topik yang kebenarannya mereka klaim sendiri, namun kita tidak akan senang jika harus melupakan bahwa negara yang disebut-sebut sebagai negara Islam Bani Umaiyah itu telah membunuh cucu Nabi Muhammad, Imam Husain dan anggota keluarga lainnya. Kalangan Islamis, pakar dalam hal memutarbalikkan sejarah, melihat adanya sebuah pelajaran dibalik ini: oposisi terhadap negara yang disebut-sebut negara islam memberikan justufikasi untuk membunuh orang-orang islam, sekalipun ia adalah keturunan keluarga Nabi Muhammad sendiri...."(hal. 376)

Hasil akhir akan membuat kita tercenung dan merenung, mengintropeksi diri. Walaupun tidak harus MELULU menyetujui pola pikir pengarangnya. Seperti dalam kalimat berikut:
"Pemisahan berdasarkan jenis kelamin, diperburuk lagi oleh kerudung, telah menimbulkan budaya frustasi seksual yang terkungkung dan kemudian tersalurkan dengan sendirinya melalui jalan yang paling tidak sehat. Berjuta-juta pemuda Saudi tidak diijinkan membiarkan seksualitas mereka berkembang secara alami, sehingga akibatnya mereka melihat lawan jenis hanya sebagai obyek seks."

============================================
Judul: Matinya Semangat Jihad: Catatan Perjalanan seorang Islamis
Pengarang : Ed Husein
Tebal: 390 hal
Penerbit: alvabet
Cetakan: 1, Juli 2008
============================================

Genghiskhun.com
PS.
Penulis tidak menyadari ternyata file .pdf hasil Karya Qutb ini ada di komputer :) . Milestone (Inggris) dan terjemahannya yang berjudul Petunjuk sepanjang Jalan (Buku wajib bagi para aktivis pergerakan islam).
serta buku-buku tarbiyah lainnya karangan Maududi, Hassan al Banna, Mustafa Mansur, Fathi Yakan, Qardawi dan lain-lain.
Entah terdownload kapan sudah lupa? juga entah kapan dibacanya... :)

Commentary for Ayahs 6-11

"Man is surely ungrateful to his Lord and of this he himself is a witness; And truly, he is passionate in his love for worldly riches". It is a fact that man reacts with ingratitude to all the bounties of his Lord. He denies the favours which Allah confers on him. His thanklessness and ingratitude is reflected in a host of actions and verbal statements which will serve as witness against him. Or perhaps, on the Day of Judgement, he may testify against himself, admitting his ingratitude: "and of this he himself is a witness ". For on the Day of Judgement he will speak the plain truth even against himself, without any contentions or excuses. "And truly, he is passionate in his love for worldly riches". Man is a passionate self-lover. But he loves only what he imagines to be good for him: wealth, power and the pleasures of this world. This is his nature unless he has faith which changes his concepts, values and even his concerns. Faith changes his ingratitude to humble thankfulness. It changes his greed and miserliness to benevolence and compassion. It makes him aware of the proper values which are worthy of being the object of ambition and hard competition. Indeed these are much more exalted than money, power and mundane pleasures.

Man without faith is an ignoble creature having only trivial ambitions and petty concerns. However big his desires, however strong his ambitions and high his objectives may seem, he remains sunk in the cesspool of this earth, confined within the limits of this life, imprisoned in self. He cannot be freed or elevated except by an attachment to a world superior to this earth, extending beyond this life; a world which originates from Allah who is the First Being and returning to Allah the Eternal; a world into which this life and the life hereafter converge and which has no end.

Hence, the final touch in the surah provides the cure for ingratitude, greed and miserliness.-It portrays the scene of resurrection in a way which makes man shudder, and puts his love for wealth and indulgence in worldly riches out of his mind, unshackling his soul and setting it free from earthly attachments: "But is he unaware that when the contents of the graves are scattered about, and what is in the breasts is brought out, surely their Lord will on that day know all about them". It is a violent and frightening scene in which we witness the "scattering about" of the contents of the graves and the bringing out of the secrets of the hearts which were closely guarded, kept away from everyone. The Arabic terms used here for scattering and pulling are very forceful, suggesting an atmosphere of violence and force. Does he not know when this will take place? The mere awareness of all this is enough to inspire man to seek an answer and explore every avenue in search of it, while at the same time discerning all that may result from these wild movements. These nimble and agile movements finally come to where every matter and destiny is settled: "surely their Lord will on that day know all about them ". So to their Lord is their end. He "on that day" knows them and all their affairs and secrets. Allah certainly knows everything at all times and in all conditions but the knowledge of "that day" has some effects to which their attentions are drawn here. It is a knowledge which necessitates the reckoning and reward. This implicit meaning is the one underlined here. The surah is a swift, vehement and breathless piece, with a sudden terminus of meaning, expression and rhythm. It reflects a unique Qur'anic method of expression.

L'homme est doué de « perception présentielle », comme le dit fort bien Rajab 'Ali Tabrizi. Nous sommes présents à tous nos états de consciences. Nous avons des « haut » et des « bas » mais la vision qui témoigne de ces variations n'en est pas affectée. Nous sommes un miroir dans lequel nous voyons se manifester nos différents états ; pression sous l'effet du désir, dépression consécutive à une « peine ».

Le miroir est neutre et transparent. Il manifeste toutes les formes, toutes les couleurs sans rien retenir ni rien refuser. Le mental, lui, « colore » les fait des ses interprétations. Il s'attache à une certaine catégorie d'expériences qu'il juge agréables et dont il attend le renouvellement puisqu'elles le rendent « joyeux », et refuse la venue d'autres circonstances dont il pense qu'elles vont le rendre triste. L'homme finit par perdre de vue sa propre présence et à s'identifier aux flux de ses impressions mentales. L'ego est l'illusion de l'existence d'une entité permanente sous-jacente à un flux changeant, conditionné, conventionnel.

Pense nous éloigne de « ce qui est » maintenant et nous pousse vers le futur qui n'est pas. L'homme doit se souvenir qu'il a un cœur, un centre d'être. Le cœur et le miroir où il voit se manifester ses différents états. Dans le miroir de la présence il voit l'image de son ego qui n'est qu'un système de préférences émotionnelles justifiés par le langage.

L'ego n'est qu'un système d'intérêt qui nous pousse à la périphérie de nous-mêmes pour nous rassurer parmi « des gens qui appuient le dos de la tranquillité sur le coussin du conformisme », comme le soulignait Sayyid Qutb dans le Fi-zilâl al-Qur'ân.

L'ego ne voit pas les faits, il « estime » que les choses devraient aller dans le sens de ses désirs « imaginaires ». En fait, il y a une conscience qui voit les choses comme elles sont et une autre conscience qui croit qu'elle voit mais qui en fait ne voit que sa propre image partout.

Qu'est-ce que la moderne « civilisation de l'image » sinon une tentative désespérée de faire passer une « représentation » pour un miroir de présence. A lieu que l'image apparaisse investie d'une fonction symbolique, conduisant à un sens intérieur, il s'agit surtout d'une réduction de l'Image au niveau de la perception sensible pure et simple. Il fallait quelque chose comme une sécularisation de l'Imaginal en imaginaire, pour que triomphe le fantastique, l'horrible, le monstrueux, le macabre, le misérable, l'absurde.

L'ego, le moi individuel n'est pas du tout « là », dans le « maintenant ». Il est avec son passé. Pourquoi ? Parce que son « image » s'est constituée par réaction à une expérience de privation. L'expérience agréable produit une identification avec son objet. L'homme « s'oublie » dans le plaisir. Alors qu'une frustration amène le « sujet » à se « séparer » de son environnement et à s'identifier à un refus d'être affecté. Le moi est pure négativité. Il s'est constitué sur la base de « refus ». Il refuse que quelque chose lui ait été refusé. La souffrance, les soucis, la tristesse apparaissent parce que l'on n'accepte pas ce qui arrive. Acceptez le passé et la douleur aiguë qu'il provoque disparaît. La mémoire du passé se projette elle-même dans le futur. Le futur, en soi, n'existe pas. Le mental préoccupé du passé et du futur ne fait rien d'autre que d'échapper au présent.

Ibn ‘Abbās said something interesting in this regard: “The Arabic term andād is polytheism which is sometimes more hidden that the movement of an ant on a black stone in a dark night. Examples of it are when a man says that by Allah, by my own soul, by your soul (here he puts Allah, his soul, and his friend’s soul on the same plane). Or when one says that if it weren’t for this dog being here last night thieves would have come (here he considers the dog his savior). Or when one says whatever Allah wants and whatever you want. All of these statements have the scent of polytheism.”[1]

It is stated in a tradition: Someone said the following sentence in the presence of the Prophet (s): “Whatever Allah wants and whatever you want.”

The Prophet said: “Are you creating a partner with Allah?”[2]

In modern layman’s terms it is frequently said: “First Allah and second you.” It must be accepted that such terms are not good for a complete monotheist to use.

There is a tradition from Imām Sādiq (a) explaining the 106^th verse of Sūrah Yūsuf (most of them believe not in Allah without associating (other as partners) with Him[3]): “This alludes to subtle polytheism – for instance: when one says: ‘If it wasn’t for you I would have been destroyed or my life would have gone with the wind.’”[4]

This free podcast offers a discussion between Yoav Di-Capua, co-editor of the Middle & Near East section of History Compass, and Tamara Sonn, Editor-in-Chief of Religion Compass and History Compass author. Here they skillfully examine Tamara's article: Islamic Fundamentalism and Political Islam

This succinct and engaging podcast explores common misconceptions about political actors from the Muslim world. An important distinction is made between Islamic fundamentalism and political Islam.

Click here to Listen to the podcast (mp3 file, 9.7mb, 13 minutes 55 seconds).

You can also Subscribe to Podcast via iTunes

Despite this scorn, Islamists are eager to use elections to attain power, and have proven themselves to be agile vote-getters; even a terrorist organization (Hamas) has won an election. This record does not render the Islamists democratic but indicates their tactical flexibility and their determination to gain power. As Erdoğan has revealingly explained, "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off." Read more...

::

The Indonesian Case Study

In the global debate about the compatibility between Islam and democracy, Indonesia is often held up as an example of the possible. Ten years after General Suharto's downfall, the world's most populous Muslim country has institutionalized free elections and the peaceful transfer of power, nurtured a lively press, and rolled back a panoply of racist laws that once targeted the country's ethnic Chinese minority. But the ongoing persecution of the Ahmadiyya, a small Muslim sect founded in late 19th century India, underscores Indonesia's – and the Muslim world's – trouble guaranteeing a bedrock democratic value: freedom of conscience. Without it, the country's proud claim to be the world's third-largest democracy will remain lacking.

From The April 22nd Asian Edition of the Wall Street Journal has an op-ed , Intolerance in Indonesia, by Dadanand Dhume, a fellow at the Asia Society.

The Indonesian Case Study

THE latest results from the elections in the provinces of West Java and North Sumatra, Indonesia, would suggest that a sea change of sorts is taking place in Indonesia. Will it be the modernist vision of the Islamists of PKS and PAN (which is already conservative enough on social and moral issues), or will it be the exclusive and sectarian vision of Islam currently pushed by the likes of the Indonesian Mujahideen Council?

::

Article Category: Democracy and Islam

::

Lalu tragedi yang lebih mengerikan, memilukan, dan lebih dirancang sebelumnya adalah peristiwa yang terjadi di sebuah kereta api yang mengangkut para pegawai Muslim di seluruh pelosok India menuju Pakistan, setelah sebelumnya telah disepakati pemindahan pegawai Muslim di kantor-kantor India yang menginginkan pindah ke Pakistan. Maka, berkumpullah di kereta api ini 50.000 pegawai. Kereta api itu masuk sebuah terowongan di daerah perbatasan India-Pakistan yang bernama jalur Khaibar dengan mengangkut kelima puluh ribu pegawai itu. Namun, ketika keluar dari mulut terowongan yang kedua ia tidak mengangkut apa pun selain potongan-potongan tubuh yang tersobek-sobek dan bertebaran di sana-sini dalam kereta!

Pasukan India paganis yang terorganisasi dan terlatih dengan baik itu telah menghentikan kereta api tersebut dalam terowongan dan meraka tidak mengijinkannya melanjutkan perjalanannya kembali kecuali sesudah 50.000 pegawai itu berubah menjadi potongan tubuh dan darah! Sungguh benar firman Allah SWT, ”Bagaimana bisa (ada perjanjian dari sisi Allah dan Rasul-Nya dengan orang-orang musryikin), padahal jika mereka memperoleh kemenangan terhadap kamu, mereka tidak memelihara hubungan kekerabatan terhadap kamu dan tidak (pula mengindahkan) perjanjian” (Q.S. At-Taubah [9] : 8).

Penyembelihan-penyembelihan itu senantiasa berulang dalam bentuk-bentuknya yang beragam hingga detik ini. Apa yang kami sebutkan ini adalah peristiwa paling dekat dengan zaman kita ini.

Lalu, gerangan apa yang dilakukan Kaisar-kaisar Tartar di Cina yang komunis terhadap umat Islam di sana? Hanya dalam waktu seperempat abad mereka telah memusnahkan 26.000.000 orang Islam, rata-rata 1.000.000 orang per tahun. Upaya pemusnahan terus berjalan tanpa pernah mau berhenti. Selain sarana-sarana penyiksaan kejam yang kengeriannya membuat merinding bulu kuduk, di wilayah kekuasaan Cina di daerah Turkistan Muslim telah terjadi tragedi yang melengkapi kebiadaban Tartar : seorang pemimpin Islam ditangkap, lalu dimasukkan ke sebuah lubang yang telah digali untuknya di jalanan umum, kemudian orang-orang Islam. Di bawah tekanan penyiksaan dan intimidasi, diharuskan membawa kotoran-kotoran mereka (yang diterima oleh pemerintah dari seluruh penduduk untuk diolah menjadi pupuk sebagai imbal balik makanan yang diberikannya kepada mereka) dan melemparkannya ke pemimpin Muslim itu di lubangnya! Upaya penyiksaan ini berlangsung selama tiga hari, sementara sang pemimpin merasa kesakitan di dalam lubang dalam keadaan seperti itu dan meninggal!

Yang seperti itu pula yang dilakukan olah Yugoslavia Komunis terhadap umat Islam disana. Mereka telah memusnahkan sejuta orang dari mereka sejak berkuasanya Komunisme disana pasca Perang Dunia Kedua hingga saat ini. Upaya-upaya pemusnahan dan penyiksaan yang biadab —yang diantara contoh terkejinya adalah pelemparan orang-orang Islam, pria dan wanita, ke mesin pengolahan daging yang memproduksi daging bolobif agar ketika keluar dari corong kedua mereka telah berubah menjadi adonan yang terbuat dari daging, tulang dan darah— masih tetap berlangsung hingga hari ini!

Apa yang terjadi di Yugoslavia terjadi juga di seluruh negara Komunis dan ateis, sekarang dan di zaman ini. Ini semua menegaskan kebenaran firman Allah SAW :

”Bagaimana bisa (ada perjanjian dari sisi Allah dan Rasul-Nya dengan orang-orang musryikin), padahal jika mereka memperoleh kemenangan terhadap kamu, mereka tidak memelihara hubungan kekerabatan terhadap kamu dan tidak (pula mengindahkan) perjanjian” (Q.S. At-Taubah [9] : 8).

”Mereka tidak memelihara (hubungan) kerabat terhadap orang-orang mukmin dan tidak (pula mengindahkan) perjanjian. Dan mereka itulah orang-orang yang melampaui batas.” (QS. At Taubah [9]: 10)

Keadaan di atas bukanlah keadaan yang bersifat sementara atau temporal di Jazirah Arab. Ia bukanlah keadaan yang bersifat sementara atau temporal di Baghdad. Ia adalah keadaan permanen, alami dan otomastis setiap kali ada orang –orang beriman yang mempersembahkan peribadatan hanya kepada Allah dan orang-orang musyrik atau orang-orang ateis yang mempersembahkan peribadatan kepada selain Allah. Di setiap masa dan disemua tempat.

Berdasarkan keterangan, ayat-ayat di surat At-Taubah di atas, meskipun turun untuk menghadapi situasi kondisi yang ada di Jazirah Arab dan dimaksudkan untuk menegaskan hukum-hukum interaksi dengan orang-orang musryik Jazirah, namun daya jangkau waktu dan wilayahnya lebih luas dari itu. Karena ia selalu menghadapi situasi kondisi yang seperti itu di setiap masa dan seluruh tempat. Aplikasinya bergantung pada kemampuan untuk menerapkannya dalam dituasi kondisi seperti di jazirah Arab; ia tidak terkait dengan hukum aslinya atau sikap dasarnya yang tidak akan pernah berubah sepanjang masa.

Zainuri Hanif, Juli 2007

Sumber :

1. Al Qur’anul Karim
2. Fikih Pergerakan Sayyid Quthb, Aku Wariskan Untuk Kalian! Uswah press, Mei 2007