Search This Blog

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Poligami = Sunnah?

Artikel dari sebuah milis. Well, ide yang ditulis tidak beda jauh dari apa yang kutulis dari Polygamy = Sunnah Rasul? yang dalam bahasa Inggris itu. :) It shows that Faqihudin Abdul Kodir and I are sailing in the same boat. :)

Benarkah Poligami Sunah?
Faqihuddin Abdul Kodir


UNGKAPAN "poligami itu sunah" sering digunakan sebagai pembenaran poligami. Namun, berlindung pada pernyataan itu, sebenarnya bentuk lain dari pengalihan tanggung jawab atas tuntutan untuk berlaku adil karena pada kenyataannya, sebagaimana ditegaskan Al Quran, berlaku adil sangat sulit dilakukan (An-Nisa: 129).

DALIL "poligami adalah sunah" biasanya diajukan karena sandaran kepada teks ayat Al Quran (QS An-Nisa, 4: 2-3) lebih mudah dipatahkan. Satu-satunya ayat yang berbicara tentang poligami sebenarnya tidak mengungkapkan hal itu pada konteks memotivasi, apalagi mengapresiasi poligami. Ayat ini meletakkan poligami pada konteks perlindungan terhadap yatim piatu dan janda korban perang.

Dari kedua ayat itu, beberapa ulama kontemporer, seperti Syekh Muhammad Abduh, Syekh Rashid Ridha, dan Syekh Muhammad al-Madan-ketiganya ulama terkemuka Azhar Mesir-lebih memilih memperketat.

Lebih jauh Abduh menyatakan, poligami adalah penyimpangan dari relasi perkawinan yang wajar dan hanya dibenarkan secara syar'i dalam keadaan darurat sosial, seperti perang, dengan syarat tidak menimbulkan kerusakan dan kezaliman (Tafsir al-Manar, 4/287).

Anehnya, ayat tersebut bagi kalangan yang propoligami dipelintir menjadi "hak penuh" laki-laki untuk berpoligami. Dalih mereka, perbuatan itu untuk mengikuti sunah Nabi Muhammad SAW. Menjadi menggelikan ketika praktik poligami bahkan dipakai sebagai tolok ukur keislaman seseorang: semakin aktif berpoligami dianggap semakin baik poisisi keagamaannya. Atau, semakin bersabar seorang istri menerima permaduan, semakin baik kualitas imannya.

Slogan-slogan yang sering dimunculkan misalnya, "poligami membawa berkah", atau "poligami itu indah", dan yang lebih populer adalah "poligami itu sunah".

Dalam definisi fikih, sunah berarti tindakan yang baik untuk dilakukan. Umumnya mengacu kepada perilaku Nabi. Namun, amalan poligami, yang dinisbatkan kepada Nabi, ini jelas sangat distorsif. Alasannya, jika memang dianggap sunah, mengapa Nabi tidak melakukannya sejak pertama kali berumah tangga?

Nyatanya, sepanjang hayatnya, Nabi lebih lama bermonogami daripada berpoligami. Bayangkan, monogami dilakukan Nabi di tengah masyarakat yang menganggap poligami adalah lumrah. Rumah tangga Nabi SAW bersama istri tunggalnya, Khadijah binti Khuwalid RA, berlangsung selama 28 tahun. Baru kemudian, dua tahun sepeninggal Khadijah, Nabi berpoligami. Itu pun dijalani hanya sekitar delapan tahun dari sisa hidup beliau. Dari kalkulasi ini, sebenarnya tidak beralasan pernyataan "poligami itu sunah".

Sunah, seperti yang didefinisikan Imam Syafi'i (w. 204 H), adalah penerapan Nabi SAW terhadap wahyu yang diturunkan. Pada kasus poligami Nabi sedang mengejawantahkan Ayat An-Nisa 2-3 mengenai perlindungan terhadap janda mati dan anak-anak yatim. Dengan menelusuri kitab Jami' al-Ushul (kompilasi dari enam kitab hadis ternama) karya Imam Ibn al-Atsir (544-606H), kita dapat menemukan bukti bahwa poligami Nabi adalah media untuk menyelesaikan persoalan social saat itu, ketika lembaga sosial yang ada belum cukup kukuh untuk solusi.

Bukti bahwa perkawinan Nabi untuk penyelesaian problem sosial bisa dilihat pada teks-teks hadis yang membicarakan perkawinan-perkawinan Nabi. Kebanyakan dari mereka adalah janda mati,
kecuali Aisyah binti bu Bakr RA.

Selain itu, sebagai rekaman sejarah jurisprudensi Islam, ungkapan "poligami itu sunah" juga merupakan reduksi yang sangat besar. Nikah saja, menurut fikih, memiliki berbagai predikat hukum, tergantung kondisi calon suami, calon istri, atau kondisi masyarakatnya. Nikah bisa wajib, sunah, mubah (boleh), atau sekadar diizinkan. Bahkan, Imam al-Alusi dalam tafsirnya, Rûhal-Ma'âni, menyatakan, nikah bisa diharamkan ketika calon suami tahu dirinya tidak akan bisa memenuhi hak-hak istri, apalagi sampai menyakiti dan mencelakakannya. Demikian halnya dengan poligami. Karena itu, Muhammad Abduh dengan melihat kondisi Mesir saat itu, lebih memilih mengharamkan poligami.

Nabi dan larangan poligami

Dalam kitab Ibn al-Atsir, poligami yang dilakukan Nabi adalah upaya transformasi sosial (lihat pada Jâmi' al-Ushûl, juz XII, 108-179). Mekanisme poligami yang diterapkan Nabi merupakan strategi untuk meningkatkan kedudukan perempuan dalam tradisi feodal Arab pada abad ke-7 Masehi. Saat itu, nilai sosial seorang perempuan dan janda sedemikian rendah sehingga seorang laki-laki dapat beristri sebanyak mereka suka.

Sebaliknya, yang dilakukan Nabi adalah membatasi praktik poligami, mengkritik perilaku sewenang-wenang, dan menegaskan keharusan berlaku adil dalam berpoligami.

Ketika Nabi melihat sebagian sahabat telah mengawini delapan sampai sepuluh perempuan, mereka diminta menceraikan dan menyisakan hanya empat. Itulah yang dilakukan Nabi kepada Ghilan bin Salamah ats-Tsaqafi RA, Wahb al-Asadi, dan Qais bin al-Harits. Dan, inilah pernyataan eksplisit dalam pembatasan terhadap kebiasan poligami yang awalnya tanpa batas sama sekali.

Pada banyak kesempatan, Nabi justru lebih banyak menekankan prinsip keadilan berpoligami. Dalam sebuah ungkapan dinyatakan: "Barang siapa yang mengawini dua perempuan, sedangkan ia tidak bisa berbuat adil kepada keduanya, pada hari akhirat nanti separuh tubuhnya akan lepas dan terputus" (Jâmi' al-Ushûl, juz XII, 168, nomor hadis: 9049). Bahkan, dalam berbagai kesempatan, Nabi SAW menekankan pentingnya bersikap sabar dan menjaga perasaan istri.

Teks-teks hadis poligami sebenarnya mengarah kepada kritik, pelurusan, dan pengembalian pada prinsip keadilan. Dari sudut ini, pernyataan "poligami itu sunah" sangat bertentangan dengan apa yang disampaikan Nabi. Apalagi dengan melihat pernyataan dan sikap Nabi yang sangat tegas menolak poligami Ali bin Abi Thalib RA. Anehnya, teks hadis ini jarang dimunculkan kalangan propoligami. Padahal, teks ini diriwayatkan para ulama hadis terkemuka: Bukhari, Muslim, Turmudzi, dan Ibn Majah.

Nabi SAW marah besar ketika mendengar putri beliau, Fathimah binti Muhammad SAW, akan dipoligami Ali bin Abi Thalib RA. Ketika mendengar rencana itu, Nabi pun langsung masuk ke masjid dan naik mimbar, lalu berseru: "Beberapa keluarga Bani Hasyim bin al-Mughirah meminta izin kepadaku untuk mengawinkan putri mereka dengan Ali bin Abi Thalib. Ketahuilah, aku tidak akan mengizinkan, sekali lagi tidak akan mengizinkan. Sungguh tidak aku izinkan, kecuali Ali bin Abi Thalib menceraikan putriku, kupersilakan mengawini putri mereka. Ketahuilah, putriku itu bagian dariku; apa yang mengganggu perasaannya adalah menggangguku juga, apa yang menyakiti hatinya adalah menyakiti hatiku juga." (Jâmi' al-Ushûl, juz XII, 162, nomor hadis: 9026).

Sama dengan Nabi yang berbicara tentang Fathimah, hampir setiap orangtua tidak akan rela jika putrinya dimadu. Seperti dikatakan Nabi, poligami akan menyakiti hati perempuan, dan juga menyakiti hati orangtuanya.

Jika pernyataan Nabi ini dijadikan dasar, maka bisa dipastikan yang sunah justru adalah tidak mempraktikkan poligami karena itu yang tidak dikehendaki Nabi. Dan, Ali bin Abi Thalib RA sendiri tetap bermonogami sampai Fathimah RA wafat.

Poligami tak butuh dukungan teks

Sebenarnya, praktik poligami bukanlah persoalan teks, berkah, apalagi sunah, melainkan persoalan budaya. Dalam pemahaman budaya, praktik poligami dapat dilihat dari tingkatan sosial yang berbeda.

Bagi kalangan miskin atau petani dalam tradisi agraris, poligami dianggap sebagai strategi pertahanan hidup untuk penghematan pengelolaan sumber daya. Tanpa susah payah, lewat poligami akan diperoleh tenaga kerja ganda tanpa upah. Kultur ini dibawa migrasi ke kota meskipun stuktur masyarakat telah berubah. Sementara untuk kalangan priayi, poligami tak lain dari bentuk pembendamatian perempuan. Ia disepadankan dengan harta dan takhta yang berguna untuk mendukung penyempurnaan derajat sosial lelaki.

Dari cara pandang budaya memang menjadi jelas bahwa poligami merupakan proses dehumanisasi perempuan. Mengambil pandangan ahli pendidikan Freire, dehumanisasi dalam konteks poligami terlihat mana kala perempuan yang dipoligami mengalami self-depreciation. Mereka membenarkan, bahkan bersetuju dengan tindakan poligami meskipun mengalami penderitaan lahir batin luar biasa. Tak sedikit di antara mereka yang menganggap penderitaan itu adalah pengorbanan yang sudah sepatutnya dijalani, atau poligami itu terjadi karena kesalahannya sendiri.

Dalam kerangka demografi, para pelaku poligami kerap mengemukakan argumen statistik. Bahwa apa yang mereka lakukan hanyalah kerja bakti untuk menutupi kesenjangan jumlah penduduk yang tidak seimbang antara lelaki dan perempuan. Tentu saja argumen ini malah menjadi bahan tertawaan. Sebab, secara statistik, meskipun jumlah perempuan sedikit lebih tinggi, namun itu hanya terjadi pada usia di atas 65 tahun atau di bawah 20 tahun. Bahkan, di dalam kelompok umur 25-29 tahun, 30-34 tahun, dan 45-49 tahun jumlah lelaki lebih tinggi. (Sensus DKI dan Nasional tahun 2000; terima kasih kepada lembaga penelitian IHS yang telah memasok data ini).

Namun, jika argumen agama akan digunakan, maka sebagaimana prinsip yang dikandung dari teks-teks keagamaan itu, dasar poligami seharusnya dilihat sebagai jalan darurat. Dalam kaidah fikih, kedaruratan memang diperkenankan. Ini sama halnya dengan memakan bangkai; suatu tindakan yang dibenarkan manakala tidak ada yang lain yang bisa dimakan kecuali bangkai.

Dalam karakter fikih Islam, sebenarnya pilihan monogami atau poligami dianggap persoalan parsial. Predikat hukumnya akan mengikuti kondisi ruang dan waktu. Perilaku Nabi sendiri menunjukkan betapa persoalan ini bisa berbeda dan berubah dari satu kondisi ke kondisi lain. Karena itu, pilihan monogami-poligami bukanlah sesuatu yang prinsip. Yang prinsip adalah keharusan untuk selalu merujuk pada prinsip-prinsip dasar syariah, yaitu keadilan, membawa kemaslahatan dan tidak mendatangkan mudarat atau kerusakan (mafsadah).

Dan, manakala diterapkan, maka untuk mengidentifikasi nilai-nilai prinsipal dalam kaitannya dengan praktik poligami ini, semestinya perempuan diletakkan sebagai subyek penentu keadilan. Ini prinsip karena merekalah yang secara langsung menerima akibat poligami. Dan, untuk pengujian nilai-nilai ini haruslah dilakukan secara empiris, interdisipliner, dan obyektif dengan melihat efek poligami dalam realitas sosial masyarakat.

Dan, ketika ukuran itu diterapkan, sebagaimana disaksikan Muhammad Abduh, ternyata yang terjadi lebih banyak menghasilkan keburukan daripada kebaikan. Karena itulah Abduh kemudian meminta pelarangan poligami.

Dalam konteks ini, Abduh menyitir teks hadis Nabi SAW: "Tidak dibenarkan segala bentuk kerusakan (dharar) terhadap diri atau orang lain." (Jâmi'a al-Ushûl, VII, 412, nomor hadis: 4926). Ungkapan ini tentu lebih prinsip dari pernyataan "poligami itu sunah".

Faqihuddin Abdul Kodir
Dosen STAIN Cirebon dan peneliti Fahmina Institute Cirebon, Alumnus Fakultas
Syariah Universitas Damaskus, Suriah

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

The Hypocrisy of Marriage

One article I got from a mailing list I join. It was taken from a newspaper in Ryadh.

Gulf News (Riyadh)June 16, 2006

'Marriage gangs' prey on youths.

Mariam Al Hakeem, Correspondent

Riyadh -- With the beginning of the summer holidays, a large number
of Arabs, especially from the Gulf states, are traveling to tourist
destinations in various parts of the world, especially in the Far East,
looking to enjoy themselves and relax.

Most of them want to enjoy their holidays in picturesque places,
Visiting historical monuments and taking in the culture.

Some of them, however, will want to take advantage of the opportunity
to try out temporary marriages. They prefer Indonesia over other countries, mainly because of the low cost of living there.

This has resulted in the mushrooming of marriage bureaus in Jakarta and
other major Indonesian cities in recent years.

Organized gangs have also grown up who prey on Arab tourists and try to
lure them with promises of low-cost marriages and then cheating them.

Several Saudi youths, who became prey to these gangs, shared their
Bitter experiences with Gulf News.

They were lured by the false promises of the gang members of "marriages
to beautiful young women under 18 at cheap rates."

In most cases, their brides abandoned them and ran away within few days
of the marriage.

When they then contacted the marriage bureaus, the employees washed
their hands of blame saying that it was not their responsibility to
ensure that their brides stayed with them.

According to the youths, who declined to be named, marriage 'mafias'
Are common in Jakarta, and their activities pivot mainly around places that Arabs frequent.

The gang members introduce themselves as representatives of licensed
marriage bureaus and offer marriage proposals.

The marriage ceremonies are then held at marriage bureaus in the
presence of a licensed marriage notary and two witnesses. The dowry normally ranges between two to three million Indonesian Rupiah (Dh1,000-1,500).

One of the Saudi youths, who was cheated by the gangs, told Gulf News:
"While I was taking my meals at an Arab restaurant in Jakarta, I heard
some young men asking whether anybody wanted to get married to beautiful young girls. I did not pay any attention to them in the beginning.

"When they repeated the offer for the third time, I was interested and
expressed my willingness.

"They then took me to a marriage bureau and I was introduced to a man
called Haider.

"After a short while, Haider paraded five young women in front of me
and asked me to select one. When I had chosen one of them and agreed on
a dowry of four million rupiah (Dh1,468), the marriage notary appeared
with witnesses and solemnised the marriage ceremony," he said.

"When I took my bride to a nearby hotel, she was clearly bewildered.
While I was trying to be friendly with her, she asked me if she could
go out to the nearby pharmacy to buy some medicine and I agreed
not knowing that she would never return," the young man said.

The same was the case with another Saudi youth but with a slight
difference. He went to the marriage bureau and told the story of his
wife's disappearance.

The bureau staff members promised to help him find her. On leaving
the building, he saw his bride going into the same office in the
company of some other girls in order to be paraded in front of the new
"victims".

When he tried to stop her, the security guards held him and the door
was slammed shut.

Some of the Saudi victims managed to lodge complaints with the police.

A policeman was sent with the youths to the marriage bureau in search
of Haider but the police could not trace him and the staff at the
bureau told the police that he was not "in sight".

My comment:
It shows how people just play on marriages. First, those guys who are greedy for sex. Then, they are just made use by women who need money. Third, those "bureous" to get profit as much as possible from this "hidden" prostitute case.
How much are they sure that God likes this kind of thing? They just ABUSE God's verse.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Hobgoblin

"The foolish consistency is the hobgblin of little minds."
--EMERSON--


The fact that one interpretation has been made for several centuries does not always mean that it is the best and the righteous one.

The fact that women are created different from men is undeniable. The fact that women experience different thing in this life is undeniable too. The different way of thinking, the different experience of undergoing this life will create different interpretation.

And why on earth do people easily say that someone new--that happens to be a woman--is wrong in interpreting something? Who has right to say that someone is right and someone is wrong? Who has right to say that someone else's interpretion must be wrong? Who has right to say that his/her interpreation is exactly what God meant for all human beings?

Nobody has proven it yet.
Again, I want to quote what Buddha said:

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.


I am not Buddhist; I just use MY common sense in interviewing this life.

Stop being nosy, please?

Why do people tend to gossip about other people? Why don’t they just mind their own matter?
To forget their own problems in their life? To make themselves relieved that they are not the only ones who have problems, people need to find out other people’s weaknesses?

Last Sunday, June 18, 2006 when attending a wedding party of a workmate, I saw the new receptionist in my workplace—in her early twenties—come with a guy. I thought he was her boyfriend. In fact, he is her husband. Coz I didn’t know that she was already married, I commented, “Oh, she is already married? I don’t know about it yet.” Well, I suppose it was not my mistake not knowing that she was already married, was it? I never like to dig out other people’s personal problem. I view her as a receptionist, not as a wife of someone, or a child of someone, or a parent of someone. Or was it coz I was an ignorant person?

My comment in fact invited one workmate to talk more about that new receptionist. She said, “She also already has a baby, two and a half years old. She is too young to have a two and a half year old baby, isn’t she? That showed that her marriage was caused of “something”. (read  getting pregnant before the wedding party. In Indonesia, it is still considered a disgrace.)

Knowing the atmosphere no longer conducive, (I don’t like to talk about other people’s personal problem), I tried to stop it by saying, “What’s wrong with our culture? When someone is still single, especially if she/he is considered old enough to get married, society will besiege her/him with questions such as, “When will you get married?” or “When will I get a wedding invitation from you?” After someone gets married for some time, people will besiege them with questions, “So, are you /is your wife already pregnant?” Now that she (the receptionist) already got married and already had a baby, people still talk about her. Why don’t we just shut our mouth talking about other people’s personal life?”

A male workmate—approaching forty years old and still single—laughed loudly hearing what I said. He responded, “Yeah, that’s one characteristic of our people here, Ma’am.”

Well, I just want to try to have a healthier society, where people stop bullying other people’s personal affair.
PT56 20.25 250606

"Good" woman vs "bad" woman?

One aerobics instructor’s husband in the club I join passed away around a week ago. Last Saturday, some people talked about that. One member of that “exclusive” gang (Y) said that she went to the funeral with her husband. It made a woman—around mid forties—talk to a woman sitting next to me, “Hey, you said that she is still single. Didn’t you hear that she came to the funeral with her husband?”
I jokingly commented, “Whose husband?” (I don’t know anything about Y and the other members of exclusive gang’s habit. Well, people talk about their “bad habit”, but I don’t understand about it. I seldom have friendly chat and have small talk with other members of the club. Besides, I don’t like to find out other people’s personal problems.)

R sitting next to me responded, “Yeah, whose husband? Perhaps another woman’s husband but she admitted as her husband?”

Ups … I didn’t expect that my joke in fact caused other people to gossip.  It made me shut my mouth.

R continued saying, “Y said that she didn’t want to get involved with a guy for a long relationship. She did it just for fun with many guys.”

I didn’t comment anything coz I didn’t want to make the situation worse. But it didn’t mean that I didn’t go on listening to other people’s chat. LOL. Besides, I wanted to know more about the other members of the club.

This mid-forties woman continued saying, “I don’t understand why those women don’t feel shy to lie naked in front of many men. I myself feel very shy to my very own husband, that’s why I always do it in the dark.”

Apparently she followed the stereotyping people do; “good” women must not show their desire to men, including their own husbands; they must be passive; bad women are those who show their passion openly, moreover to do it with many men, outside wedlock.

In this patriarchal society, where women are considered to be successful if they can get husband, they’ve got to show to other people that they are “good” woman, so that they deserve to be married by a man. To be considered “good”, they must find the “contradictory”—“bad” woman, so that they busily find out the weakness of other women. Binary opposition requires two contradictory things, good versus bad; passive versus active, the oppressed versus the oppressor, etc.

I didn’t give any comment to what these two mid-forties women talked about. I didn’t like people to judge other people using their own perspective without trying to understand it from different perspective. I chose to keep quiet.

PT56 22.33 250606

Women in the male-dominated society

Some days ago, in one local newspaper, I read an article about a woman—in her forties—killed her husband. When being interrogated by the police, she didn’t show any regret; instead, she said she felt relieved. Simply she said, during their marriage for 17 years, the husband did a lot of violence to her. She didn’t attack him back. However, in the last “fight”, her husband tried to kill her; therefore she had to fight back. And she killed him using a big stone hit to his head.

Another news stated that a twenty-year-old boy killed his stepfather who married his mother two years ago. His reason was he didn’t have a heart to see his stepfather did violence to his mother all the time during their two-year marriage.

Why didn’t the first woman divorce her husband if he always did violence to her? I think the reason was simple: the “myth” planted to people’s mind that people are supposed to get married only once in their life if they want to be considered as “good” people, and also, “good” woman must submit to her husband.

Why did the second woman remarry? To live “single” after the first husband died or coz of divorce is not easy for women here. Society will keep an eye to this kind of women. Other women will be suspicious in case these “single” women would steal their husband. To avoid this, many women choose to remarry, even though the man is violent.

One workmate of mine whose husband died in the early of 2005 remarried by the end of 2005, with her junior high school friend who happened to be still unemployed. Perhaps it was not easy for her to live single (so that it was not a big deal for my workmate to marry an unemployed.) Most people need a companion to live this life. But perhaps it was also caused by this workmate of mine didn’t feel confident to live single when society view her suspiciously (and other women show suspicious look feeling worried if she would steal their husband.)

PT56 22.56 250606

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

God's Curse?

I just read a short story entitled “Kutukan Tuhan” (God’s curse) in Suara Merdeka, a local newspaper. The writer is one “big” writer in Indonesia, Putu Wijaya. He beautifully “criticized” the way people related natural disasters to God’s curse.

I once heard/read an article about people—I assume they are Muslim people—suspected that the earthquake happened in Yogya coz of God’s anger. The worst area damaged by the earthquake last May 27, 2006 was Bantul, an area where many people converted from Islam to another religion. That rumor stated, “It is God’s hint that they must atone by converting back to Islam.”

It made me question how about Tsunami? It happened more than 2 years ago in Aceh where the majority of the inhabitants are Muslim. Of course the victims were majority Muslims too.
However, Putu Wijaya’s short story is not related to that “apostate” thing. God’s curse came to those sinful and bad people.

How hurtful and not empathetic that “accusation” is.

I suppose that those people suffering from the earthquake will feel hurt when knowing that they were accused as sinful and bad so that they deserved to be punished like that.

While in fact, there are still many other people who have done much more harmful things to other people (e.g. corruptors) still survive “peacefully” and enjoy the “hot” money.

And how those people who say that the earthquake was coz of “God’s curse” have become wise guy. Have they become God themselves so that they daringly said that the earthquake was coz of God’s curse?

What is going on with the way people think and view events, natural disasters, etc?

PT56 21.37 180606

Indonesia is not an Islamic country, not a secular one either

In one article I read in the local newspaper, Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, one controversial figure in Indonesia proposed Sharia regulation applied in one city in Central Java, the province where I live now. One example of the application is that when a Muslim person doesn’t do the Islamic teachings—let’s say pray five times a day—police must arrest him/her. During Ramadhan month (fasting month for Muslim), when police find out a Muslim doesn’t fast (perhaps he is still eating out in a food stall or restaurant), police must arrest him/her. Women who don’t wear hijab (veil) will be arrested and be jailed. And so on.

It reminded me of one discussion I had some time ago with my two friends. Both of them wear hijab in their daily life, I don’t. In my eyes, they are more pious than I am coz I consider myself as a secular person. I talked to them that many Muslim people in Indonesia do the Islamic teachings only coz they are afraid to go to hell. The expectation that people who do the teachings regularly and well will become “good” people (read => not harming other people) doesn’t really come true. In the reality there are many examples where people who do the teachings of their religion also do other things that harm other people; corruption, collusion, and many other things.

And now, if that Sharia regulation is really applied here (it has been applied in some areas in Indonesia), there will be more hypocrite people. They do the teachings not to get closer to their God, but coz they are afraid of being arrested and jailed. Police will be busier to watch the citizens who don’t pray five times a day, who don’t fast during Ramadhan month, who don’t wear hijab, etc. It will create a new “field” of irresponsible police to get more illegal money from the “victims” for bribery. And government must build more prisons to accommodate the “criminals”.

This is much more ridiculous than the Pornography Bill.

Suddenly I remember what I learned in the very beginning of my study at American Studies Department. With the “discovery” of American continent at the end of the fifteenth century, many people from England—known as Puritan--migrated there coz they didn’t feel secure to live in their native land coz they couldn’t adhere to the religion they believed.

When Indonesian people don’t feel secure anymore to live in their native country, will they look for another place to escape?
PT56 22.28 180606

P.S.: Two days later after I read the article and wrote this, TEMPO stated that the municipal government of Solo regency rejected Ba'asyir's idea. Thank God. :)

I don't agree with what he said that the government must be responsible when its citizens don't pray five times a day, let's say. Doesn't Alquran state that everybody must be responsible for themselves, and not other people? When people do crime and sin, they must face the risk by themselves; when people do good to others; God will give them reward.

Friday, June 16, 2006

Woman: "No money, no love."

Around two years ago, I had a chat with a guy, B, around 30 years old. He is from Semarang, my hometown while at that time I was in Yogya, a city ruined by the terrible earthquake last May 27, 2006. I was still pursuing my study at that time.

I remember he complained to me about his wife that he described as materialistic girl. She would treat him nicely if he gave her much money. On the contrary, she would ignore him if he didn't give her enough money. And he said, no money means no sex.

He complained why his wife didn't understand him. "She loves my money, and not me."

At that time, I told him that his wife just conformed to the society's norm that women must depend on men financially. I refered it to a proverb in Bahasa Indonesia, "Ada uang, abang disayang, tak ada uang, abang ditendang." (Read for men, no money, no love.)

Well, we don't know whether this proverb was made by a woman for women's benefit, or it was made by a man for men's benefit. Men would then treat his wife as a prostitute when he has much money, and the wife cannot argue, coz "money talks". However, coz this world has been male-dominated since time immemorial, I conclude that this proverb was made by a man for men's benefit.

I had some regular chats with B some time in 2004, and I could conclude that he belonged to patriarchal guy who appreciated stereotyping of what kind of characteristics a man should have and what kind of charactristics a woman should have.

When I criticized him to be not consistent to his own opinion about women's roles and men's roles, he still insisted that his wife understand him when he doesn't bring home enough money, and that his wife "serve" him in bed just the same.

Selfish guy!

Being Married

This cartoon can be related to the previous post, "Fairy Tales". :)

Utopia?

“A place without social discrimination would be utopia.”

I found this statement in one article in The Jakarta Post, one national newspaper published in Indonesia in English. The title is “Being a Chinese-Indonesian”, and the writer as a Chinese-Indonesian man who was married to a Native woman. It was published on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 page 6.

Social discrimination happens everywhere in different forms; such as discrimination toward people who have Chinese blood in their body in Indonesia; and discrimination toward black people in the US.

Some weeks ago, I read an article in a local newspaper, an interview to a Chinese Indonesian man in my hometown Semarang. He expected that in the future there will be no discriminative treatment toward the Chinese Indonesian; let’s say they are allowed to be civil servants; no complicated process to get identity card, etc. The article especially focused on the social discrimination toward Chinese Indonesian. The interviewee seemed to ignore that many companies belong to Chinese Indonesian also apply discriminative treatment toward their Native employees in return. Perhaps the journalist was also not confident to write that fact.

However, in the article “Being a Chinese Indonesian”, the writer--Wijanto Hadipuro—illustrated that. He wrote how his wife got discriminative treatment in her job; for example she got less amount of salary than her Chinese Indonesian fellow worker although she had worked in that company longer, and both she and the Chinese Indonesian fellow worker had the same managerial position.

It reminded me of my college time when a classmate presented a paper with the similar topic, the social discrimination the Chinese Indonesian get from society. My classmate happened to have fair complexion and slanted eyes, really looked like a Chinese although she was not; she also worked in an institution where many Chinese Indonesian worked there. She presented the discriminative treatment her Chinese workmates and friends got from the government, from society while in fact, they probably the fifth generation or perhaps more than that.

Listening to her presentation, Julie and I discussed the discriminative treatment of those Chinese Indonesian people toward the Native. Her sister got lower salary than her Chinese Indonesian workmate coz she worked in a Chinese-owned company; how many those Chinese Indonesian people dehumanize their housemaids, exactly like the American people used to treat their black slaves.

Around 1994-2000 I used to work in a company that belonged to Muslim people. What I heard that the “policy” of that institution was they only hired Muslim. However, I found two Christian fellow workers there. I could see clearly that both of them didn’t really feel at home to work there. The similar policy was also applied to companies that belong to Non Muslim people; they just hire Non Muslim employee; if some Muslim people happen to work there; they will not get time they need to do religious teachings—let’s say pray when they are at the office.I am wondering when this discriminative thing will end. I am expecting to see society where people always respect other people as human beings despite the difference in color, ethnic group, religion, sex.

“Treat other people just like you want other people to treat you.”

Fairy Tales

“After getting married, Cinderella and Prince lived together happily ever after.”

This misleading ending of a fairy tale has lulled many (naïve) girls. Since many fairy tales like that have happy ending after getting married, many (naïve) girls believe that to get rid of unhappiness in their life, they’ve got to find their prince charming soon, get married, and then “live happily ever after”. And since there is no fairy tale talking about marriage with its complicated problem, quarrel, misunderstanding, until domestic violence after the wedding day, many (naïve) girls believe that marriage is the only door of happiness in their life.

One workmate of mine is one example I want to illustrate here.


Now she is around 37 years old. She got married two years ago, with a guy nine years younger than she is, and he comes from a different social class from her. My friend is from middle class society, while her husband is from low class; she graduated from college with bachelor’s degree, while her husband graduated from senior high school.


They knew each other only for about three-four months before they decided to get married. I believe it made them not know each other well yet after the wedding day. Consequently, they needed time to adjust each other. And I believe the different social class made them need a long time for the adaptation, and in some cases perhaps it is really difficult for them to go through.


Why did my friend agree to marry him?


I relate it to the “marriage-oriented society” in Indonesia. She must have felt bothered by many questions from people around her; such as, “Who is your boyfriend?” “When will you get married?” “Why don’t you get married soon now that you are above thirty?” etc.


As a naïve person, she must have agreed with the consensus—that you are happy only if you are married. Therefore, she must have thought that there was something wrong with her. And, after a guy proposed her to marry him, she didn’t take a long time to consider it before accepting it. Besides, she didn’t think that even though getting married would make her get rid of those annoying questions and suspicious looks from people around, getting married wouldn’t free her from life problems in different forms.


There is a “joke” in Indonesia about getting married. “In fact the comfort of getting married only comprises 10%. The other 90% is very very “nice”, “comfortable”, “delicious”. Bla bla bla …”
And my workmate, disappointedly said, “It is a big shit. In fact the other 90% comprises struggle, sacrifice, sometimes fight, etc.” She kept on saying, “Why didn’t those old generations tell us the truth? Don’t give young generations false illustration about getting married! Tell them the fact that marriage is not only about “delicious” things, but it is also about difficult struggle, sacrifice, fight, etc.”


Indeed, my friend’s problem is complicated and she is “awakened” by her own experience that marriage life is not as beautiful and easy as it seems. Her own problems are resulted from


1. her naivety in viewing marriage (however, she got that false illustration from what she got from her surrounding)
2. marrying someone who doesn’t have similar social class
3. the marriage-oriented society that made her not comfortable to go on living single so that she decided to marry the first guy who proposed her


Recently she often says, “I really hate that false saying, ‘and then they live together happily ever after’. It really misled me, as it did to many other girls around me.”


PT56 08.29 160606

Monday, June 12, 2006

One Case of a Friend

I wrote this conversation still in my disturbed mood of relating to Alquran and Alhadith. This conversation happened in my workplace around two weeks ago.

AN: How could HR get divorced?

Me: Well, I suppose it was triggered by his conventional way of thinking to see the relationship between husband and wife. I remember about six years ago, at one of our workmate’s house, he told me that he would find a wife who dedicates all of her life to him; staying all night at home, cooking, washing clothes, serving him in bed, even he said including putting of his shoes when he got home from work. And at that time I saw with my very own eyes, his ex wife who was his girlfriend at that time putting of his shoes and socks in front of my eyes. God, it really hurt me as a woman. How could he degrade woman’s position like that? Well, if he really deserved to get such a wife, I don’t mind, and as long as the wife doesn’t mind either. None of my business anyway. But you know, his business got bankrupt. I imagine if he still behaved bossy like that in front of his wife and he didn’t have any money, no wonder if his wife divorced him. I know his life principle is husband earns money, supports his family financially, and in return his wife treats him like a king.

RY: However, if HR is really capable of supporting his wife financially, and his wife treats him like a king, she will go to heaven. Isn’t it stated in Alhadith, that a woman must treat her husband like that so that she will go to heaven?

Me: Huh? What hadith is that? A misogynist one, I believe. Why on earth do people believe in Alhadith more than in Alquran? Don’t you know that those books containing Alhadith were written more than two hundred years after Prophet Muhammad passed away?

Fortunately, or unfortunately then RY went away from the teachers’ room.I continued talking to my workmates who still stayed there.

Me: Well, I know RY is included into those conventional ones too. I remember at that time when HR said that his wife had to welcome him when he went home from work by putting off his shoes and socks, RY supported him very much.I realize it is not as easy as turning down our palm hand when wanting to change people’s way of thinking. This misogynist way of thinking toward women has happened for centuries, moreover when it is wrapped in the name of religion, it is very difficult. People’s tendency to get privileges for themselves makes it more difficult.

To end this writing, I want to quote what Sir James Dewar said:

MINDS ARE LIKE PARACHUTES, THEY ONLY FUNCTION WHEN THEY ARE OPEN.
When people’s minds are close, what can we expect? As some time ago I wrote in one blog of mine, it is just the same as we talk to a wall!

PT56 10.42 090606

Pay It Forward

“Pay It Forward” is not a new movie. It was produced in 2001 by Mimi Leder Film. It is based on a novel written by Catherine Ryan Hyde. The three main casts are Kevin Spacey as Eugene Simonet, Helen Hunt as Arlene Mc Kenney, and Haley Joel Osment as Trevor Mc Kenney.

The story starts with a situation in a school on the first day of a new year. Eugene Simonet, a new teacher in the seventh grade, handled Social Studies subject. He gave his students an assignment that would last for a year—during their seventh grade—to do something to make the world a better place to live in. Some questions given to the students before giving that assignment were:


Ø What does the world mean to you?
Ø What is the world?
Ø What if it is just a big disappointment?


Simonet also said, “There is the world out there, whether you want to avoid it, but it is right there on your face. If in fact the world is just a big disappointment to you, take things you don’t like and put them behind your ass. And put one word in your mind: POSSIBILITY! Everything is possible in this world.”


Two main things attracted my attention from this movie. The first is Trevor’s idea to “make the world a better place to live in.” The second is the life of Arlene, Trevor’s mother.


Trevor’s amazing idea is called “Pay It Forward”, as the title of the movie. He proposed an idea of someone to give favor to three people, with one requirement—the one he/she helps must “pay” it back to three other people; and not to the one who had given favor.


Not only were his classmates attracted to Trevor’s idea, his class teacher, Simonet was amazed by it, that he called as “a utopian idea”. Of course it was not easy to do—remembering that people had a tendency to be selfish; Simonet also used an idiom “it is like to walk on water” –somewhat impossible. However, going back to his own word—POSSIBILITY—everything is possible in this world.


To make his idea come true, Trevor gave his first favor to Jerry—a bum—to get a “normal” life—get a job, live in a decent place, eat decent food, etc.


The second person Trevor “tried” to give favor was his own class teacher—Simonet. Trevor tried to match him—a smart, responsible, but lonesome man—with his mother.


The third person Trevor gave favor was his own classmate who suffered from asthma, who was always disturbed by the other bigger and naughty classmates. Trevor tried to protect him from those culprits, a very expensive “effort” coz this led to Trevor’s death by the end of the story.


Now about Arlene. The first thing made me attracted to her was her addiction to alcohol. What made her addicted to it? She felt unhappy coz her husband left her without any notice? To many women, it might be an unbearable thing to be left by their husbands. However, did it really help them forget the main problem?


Arlene had to do it secretly coz Trevor always tried to throw away his mother’s drink. What I saw was that Arlene always tried to show Trevor that “everything was okay”. She didn’t want to admit that indeed she had problems—psychological problems, I assume, with her husband leaving her and Trevor. People tend to show to other people that they are tough without realizing that inside their heart they are miserable.


At last, after one event happened, Arlene talked to Trevor openly that she indeed had problems and asked him to be by her side always, to solve them together. That was a very touching scene.
Meanwhile, Arlene’s husband was also a drinker. One day, he went back to the house where Arlene and Trevor lived, while at that time Arlene and Simonet started to see each other; one thing Trevor wanted. It made Arlene have to choose. Since she was still legally married to him, she chose to break up with Simonet.


One interesting thing in this triangle love to me was the statement by Simonet, “A drinker will always be a drinker. He/she will never change.” Is that so?


Trevor complained that Arlene never paid attention to him when his father was at home. She was busy with the father more than with the kid.


This patriarchal society always put women in an unbearable situation. Arlene accepted her husband back despite his being drunk; despite his beating her. A woman must accept any treatment given by her husband to be considered as a “loyal” and “submissive” wife? A woman must go on with the marriage no matter how badly the husband treats her so that society will label her a “good and obedient wife”?


In Indonesia, a woman who gets divorced must bear uncomfortable “label” by society, such as “easy” woman, “bitch”, a “temptress” of other women’s husbands; etc. An “ideal” world where man and woman get married only once for a lifetime has oppressed women’s lives. The ridiculous thing is that those “bad” labels are only for women; but not to men.


However, this is in Indonesia. I am wondering if Arlene had the same reason why she chose to go on with her drunk husband rather than with Simonet?


PT56 16.37 110606

Qur'an Menurut Perempuan

Recently I have been “carrying” a book entitled Quran Menurut Perempuan by Amina Wadud, the Indonesian translation of Quran and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective in 1999. It is not a new book. I have known this book for some years. I’ve got the excerpt of it on the net. However, I “found” this book in a local bookstore last April 30, Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective published by Oxford University Press, New York 2006. It was just translated into Bahasa Indonesia and published in March 2006.
The book has been in my work bag since I bought it. As usual, I let my concentration to read this book distracted by many other things, including reading many other books at the same time. LOL. I didn’t mean to show that book to my workmates demonstratively but of course since I often “carry” the book, and once in a while I put it on a big table in the teachers’ room of my workplace, some workmates of mine have seen this book.
Yesterday a Catholic workmate of mine asked me, “What is the book about?” simply I answered, “Well, so far, Alquran has been interpreted by men so no wonder if the result is very male-dominated. And this book contains the different perspective; showing that if Alquran is interpreted by women, using women’s perspective, the result is absolutely different, even in some cases, shows contradictory interpretation.” This workmate of mine nodded, didn’t ask me further.
This afternoon, another workmate of mine said to me jokingly, related to the same book, “I told you not to read books about gender much. It is not good.”
I responded, “It is not good for you guys coz women realize their rights much better so that this world will not be male-dominated any longer.” LOL.


It reminded me of the middle age before Bible was translated into many other languages. Common people couldn’t read it; moreover understand it. Only limited ministers whose way of thinking had been “shaped” by Church could read it. And since they all had been indoctrinated the same way, of course all of them resulted in the same interpretation; they taught the congregation about the same thing, only from one perspective.


After reading the article entitled “Women In Islam Versus Women In The Judaeo-Christian Tradition: The Myth & The Reality” by Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem at 


http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/womeninjud_chr.html#_Toc335566653 accessed on May 18, 2003 it made me question myself. According to Sherif Abdel Azeem, the illustration about women in Judeaeo-Christian Tradition shows the very low position given to women, but why in the reality, people consider Islam as the most chauvinistic religion of all? Islam that “lets men have more than one wife” is considered to degrade women’s position much more than the other two celestial religions mentioned by Sherif Abdel Azeem?

I related it to the fact that until now, Muslim people must recite Alquran, in its original language—Arabic. For me, Arabic is much more difficult to learn than English (coz I already become an English teacher? LOL) Many Muslim people recite Alquran everyday; however they don’t understand the meaning. To understand the meaning, they turn to the Tafsir (the interpretation of Alquran) produced by men. To help themselves understand Alquran and apply its teachings in their daily life, they turn to Alhadith written by men. They also turn to Fiqh which was written by men too!!! The result? You know that …


Again, I want to quote what Fatima Mernissi said:

“If the rights of Muslim women become problems for Muslim men, it is not because
of Alquran or Islam itself; it is because these rights contradict with the wants
of the elite Muslim men.”
If women themselves don’t struggle to reach their equality with men, for a better and equal world for both men and women, who else will do that?

PT56 21.10 100606

Friday, June 09, 2006

Ulama???

Dari milis sastra-pembebasan

Beberapa bulan belakangan ini, media massa dihiasi,drama para ulama yang saling adu bicara, bahkan ada yang dituntut agar masuk penjara. Di internet para anggota mailing list tak kalah hebat, saling serang dan menjelekkan agama satu dengan yang lain.

Organisasi saling adu massa, bersilang sengketa, tentang moralitas. Porno aksi dan porno grafi, seolah menggetarkan Nusantara, sebelum gempa bumi menggetarkan tanah Jogya.

Para oknum brahmana, pendeta dan ulama laknat,sekarang lagi mengendap-endap, mumpung perhatian media terfokus pada bencana, memasang strategi pemaksaan kehendak, mengegolkan aturan pengerem syahwat. Jelas ini pertanda, para ulama sudah putus asa, lari dari tugas tanggung jawab sebagai penjaga moralitas. Melemparkan tanggung jawab, karena tahu, bahwa moralnya sendiri rusak nan bejat. Banyak yang ngaku ulama, tapi kalau ada kesempatan nyoblos janda atau perawan, hukum agama dibelokkan untuk pembenaran. Memang begitulah brahmana mabok arta-brana, tinggal glanggang colong playu, meninggalkan tugas dan tanggung jawab sosio-kultural, tetapi sangat getol
masuk ke area politik, baik jadi pemain atau dibayar murah sebagai pengumpul suara saat pilkada..

Sodara-sodaraku,

Tidak pernahkah kamu tahu, perilaku syeikh kaya raya, di tenda mewah padang pasir Dubai? Sekali jentikan jari, gadis-gadis cantik asal Lebanon bergoyang gemulai, berpakaian minim, perut pusar terbuka – pengundang syahwat luar biasa. HEI para brahmana lupa agama, tidakkah kau rasakan sakit hati para TKW, berlinang air mata, diperkosa, disodok paksa tongkat maksiat, pria tanah Arab ? Kalau engkau tahu tapi purah-purah tidak tahu, maka engkau tergolong Ulama Buta Mata dan Buta Hati.

Akankah kita mengacu pada nilai-nilai padang pasir, dimana aturan cadar dan pakaian, ternyata tidak bisa menghentikan gejolak nafsu syahwat lelaki bejat? Bukankah di jazirah Arab, yang kita jadikan acuan, penyedot devisa wisata moral, tumbuh bagai jamur di musim hujan, tempat bejat pemuas syahwat? Sementara kita di tanah Nusantara, ribut gontok-gontokkan, mencontoh aturan yang jelas-jelas gagal diterapkan di tanah Arab. Aturan yang tak mampu, mengurangi kebejatan moral oknum disana. Kalau disana aturan agama saja tak digubris, bahkan oleh para penguasa padang pasir, yang katanya keturunan orang suci, lalu kenapa kita seperti dicokok hidung, ikut model mereka?

Tidakkah lebih baik mencontoh laku prihatin? Prihatin terhadap keadaan bangsa kita yang saat ini terpuruk tanpa jalan keluar. Akankah kita terus cakar-cakaran,
berdebat tentang cocok tidaknya budaya padang pasir? Sementara jelas-jelas kita tahu, tlatah Nusantara beda dengan padang pasir, sehingga model sorban, cadar, pakaian panjang, tidak cocok untuk daerah tropis seperti ini. Tidakkah aneh, kalau ada warga gunung kidul, kurus kudisan, petani ketela, memelihara jenggot panjang, meniru wajah-wajah tanah Arab, dimana jenggot lebat memang menjadi pemanis struktur wajah
warga padang pasir?

Kemulian karya-karya orang suci tanah Arab, tidaklah saya abaikan. Akan tetapi saya simpan dalam hati, dan saya gunakan dalam melaksanakan kehidupan. Apakah kita
perlu menonjolkan jati diri, membanggakan identitas, berbondong-bondong pada hari jumat, sambil membawa niat, hanya untuk mengharap mukjizat, kejatuhan pangkat dan derajat ? Akankah kita terus mempelajari sareat, tarik urat mempertahankan pendapat, tetapi tidak memahami hakekat ?

Warga bangsa yang saya cintai,

Anak bangsa, bagai domba bodoh yang digiring kesana kemari, oleh ulama yang buta mata dan hati. Karena tak paham arti kiasan dari karya suci nan indah, lalu para
manipulator ayat, menggiring rakyat jelata ke jurang sesat yang akhirnya mendapatkan laknat. Diajarkan membaca kutbah, akan tetapi, lidahnya lidah jawa, syair arab dilagukan dandang gula ala palaran.

Sudah terlalu jauh langkah yang telah dilakukan oleh anak-anak bangsa. Sepertinya bukan lagi meneladani Kanjeng Nabi, tetapi sudah terlalu banyak digiring dan dicekoki oleh ulama bejat. Brahmana laknat, hanya mempertajam sarengat, tanpa tahu hakikat, meneriakkan seruan jahat, yang dibalik itu, hanya ada niat untuk menjadi jongos para ningrat pejabat laknat.

Hei anak-anak Nusantara ! jangan kau ikuti, tingkah polah brahmana ulama buta mata dan buta hati. Sebentar lagi, para danyang-danyang tanah Nusantara, akan datang menyantap habis satu persatu, ulama penjual ayat, pejabat bejat, pedagang penggarong duit rakyat. Janjinya pasti dipenuhi, seperti dipenuhinya, pertanda yang diberikan sejak 500 tahun yang silam, yang saat ini terbukti yakni Gunung Merapi Meletus, Laharnya Berbau Amis. Setelah gunung meletus, maka tanda berikutnya adalah, darah mengucur dari tubuh ulama buta mata dan hati. Sebagai tumbal bagi para Danyang
Tanah Jawi. Tak ada yang akan bisa menghalangi.

Rakyat jelata Nusantara, jauhilah para ulama buta mata dan buta hati. Jauhilah brahmana bejat, yang suka mengail di air keruh, penikam kawan seiring, penggunting dalam lipatan. Pendeta bejat yang mengesampingkan budi pekerti, untuk meraih uang dan
kekuasaan. Jaga hati nurani, agar tidak ikut terseret perintah pendeta gila. Tetaplah teguh walau hidupmu terasa berat, bahkan melarat. Jangan percaya pinandita mabok harta, tinggalkan ulama bejat, biarlah dia berkoar di padang pasir dan sendirian terkena laknat.

Sahabat, ingatlah selalu, bahwa sebaik-baiknya orang yang lupa daratan, akan lebih bahagia orang yang tetap ’eling’ dan selalu ’waspada’.

Oleh para penindita wahyu suci sering disalah gunakan. Brahmana munafik mengaku penganut kerohanian, akan tetapi wahyu yang tadinya merupakan sumber air yang
jernih, dikeruhkan oleh lumpur tabiat manusia dusta yang berpura-pura menjadi penganutnya. Agama hanya alat angkara murka sang Brahmana. Perbuatan munafik para ulama, brahmana, pendeta dan sebangsanya, adalah penyebab, terjadinya penghisapan, penindasan dari suatu golongan terhadap sesamanya di Nusantara.

Hei Ulama Buta Mata dan Hati, setelah Gunung Merapi, Meletus Laharnya Berbau Amis, maka tiba giliran Danyang Tanah Nusantara akan melenyapkanmu. Darahmu akan tercecer dalam waktu dekat, sebagai tumbal tanah Nusantara.

Maktub.

Kunjungi website si penulis di

http://360.yahoo.com/kijeromartani

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Polygamy

I just want to emphazie what I have written here about this topic, polygamy, especially to respond the SELFISH guys thinking that polygamy is one way of life in Islam, moreover for SUNNAH RASUL.

this article is from http://www.submission.org/polygamy.html

Polygamy was a way of life until the Quran was revealed 1400 years ago. When the earth was young and under-populated, polygamy was one way of populating it and bringing in the human beings needed to carry out God's plan. By the time the Quran was revealed, the world had been sufficiently populated, and the Quran put down the first limitations against polygamy.

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).

So, when Ulama said that a wife's consent is not needed when the husband wants to get married again, please be careful that he is the LOST ULAMA. When the first wife disagrees, and the husband still insists, he will make the first wife hurt, and it is obviously seen to be WRONG.

Alquran versus Alhadith

In Islam, Muslim people believe in two written things--the Holy Book Alquran (contains the verses Prophet Muhammad got from God) and Alhadith (contains everything done and said by Prophet Muhammad during his life.) FYI, Alhadith was written many hundred years after Prophet Muhammad passed away. During his life, Prophet Muhammad himself prohibited people to write anything he did and said in a book, coz he was worried if then Muslim people would concentrate more on Alhadith rather than Alquran.

And in fact what Prophet Muhammad worried really came true. Many selfish people tend to believe in what they find in Alhadith rather than what is written in Alquran.

The article I read about polygamy yesterday showed that. The blogger quoted some hadits and ignored the verses in Alquran.

However, when some scholars in Islam invite Muslim to believe in Alquran only, or basing their opinion on the verses in Alquran more than in Alhadith, some other selfish scholars in Islam judge them as "lost Ulama" coz not believing in Alhadith.

Well, yes, people tend to be selfish and interpret everything for their own benefit.

Perempuan

Dear blog readers,
Artikel berikut ini aku post di sini adalah respons yang aku berikan dalam salah satu milis yang aku ikuti.

Asal kamu tahu, kita-kita kaum yang menyebut diri 'feminis' atau, well, para pejuang untuk kesetaraan laki-laki dan perempuan, tidak menyukai pilihan kata WANITA, karena kata WAN itu berarti = yang diinginkan, berarti WANITA adalah yang diinginkan, dan di kultur yang memuja heteroseksualitas sebagai satu-satunya seksualitas yang NORMAL, tentu saja WANITA berkonotasi "yang diinginkan oleh kaum laki-laki".

Kita kaum feminis (well, mungkin tidak semua orang yang berjuang untuk kesetaraan laki-laki dan perempuan suka disebut 'feminis' karena bagi sebagian orang kata 'feminis' ini bisa jadi berkonotasi negatif, tapi, aku bangga-bangga aja menyebut diri sebagai seorang feminis. LOL) lebih memilih kata PEREMPUAN yang berasal dari PER-EMPU-AN. Kata 'empu' berarti yang ahli, berarti kita kaum perempuan adalah kaum ahli, yang mampu melakukan apa pun yang kita inginkan, mampu memilih, dan bukan hanya dipilih, apalagi YANG DIINGINKAN.

Menilik dari cerita-ceritamu, kita harus cari tahu sampai ke akar-akarnya mengapa perempuan-perempuan yang kamu ceritakan itu bertingkah laku seperti itu?

Kebetulan kita hidup di Indonesia yang kultur patriarki nya masih sangat kental walaupun ideologi feminisme (baca  kesetaraan laki-laki dan perempuan) telah masuk ke Indonesia sejak dekade-dekade terakhir abad ke 20. ditambah lagi dengan kultur “marriage-oriented society”, plus ‘sok’ relijius (contoh: kalau terjadi kekerasan dalam rumah tangga terhadap kaum perempuan, mereka diminta, atau bahkan DIHARUSKAN oleh anggota keluarga mereka sendiri untuk merahasiakan hal tersebut, karena pengindoktrinasian melalui pelajaran agama bahwa para kaum perempuan harus menjaga rahasia suami, meskipun si istri menderita batin.) seandainya terjadi ‘apa-apa’ dalam sebuah rumah tangga, masyarakat dengan mudah menuding bahwa si perempuan lah yang salah.

Hal ini tentu saja akan amat sangat mempengaruhi para kaum perempuan dalam mengambil tindakan untuk mengambil solusi suatu permasalahan. Khawatir dicap sebagai perempuan yang tidak mampu menjaga roda rumah tangga, para perempuan itu kemudian melakukan apa saja agar rumah tangga mereka tetap aman-aman saja (namun hanya terlihat dari luar saja), termasuk melakukan hal-hal yang di nalar orang lain (baca  kaum patriarki) tidak masuk akal.

Seberapa yakin kamu bahwa para perempuan yang ‘tidak masuk akal’ itu melakan semua hal tersebut hanya demi cinta terhadap suami mereka yang telah menyakiti mereka? Bagaimana dengan tudingan masyarakat yang dengan gampang menyalahkan kaum perempuan?

Juga dengan tumbuh suburnya FAIRY TALES sebangsa Cinderella (ingat? Kisah-kisah dongeng itu selalu berakhir dengan “and then the prince and the princess got married and they live happily together ever after). Seolah-olah semua permasalahan akan usai setelah pernikahan, tak ada lagi air mata, tak ada lagi nestapa. Juga bahwa “kebahagiaan hakiki” dalam hidup di dunia ini hanya bisa didapatkan dari pernikahan, hal ini akan mendorong semua orang menikah hanya untuk dianggap NORMAL, BAHAGIA.

Demi dianggap sebagai seseorang yang NORMAL dan BAHAGIA di mata masyarakat, kaum perempuan itu akan berusaha sekuat tenaga untuk menjaga rumah tangganya, meskipun mereka hancur lebur dalam hati.

Juga mitos bahwa orang-orang yang mudah melakukan perceraian dalam hidupnya adalah orang-orang yang ‘rendah’ karena tidak mampu menjaga keutuhan rumah tangga (misal: tudingan masyarakat, “Kok loe mudah amat sih cere? Gitu aja cere, emang ga ada jalan lain? Loe gampangan amat yah?”) disertai dengan mitos bahwa “broken family” akan menghasilkan ‘broken future generations’, semakin memperparah keadaan.

Padahal kalo dipikir-pikir daripada hidup bersama namun laksana hidup di neraka (bertengkar tiap hari, ataupun terjadi kekerasan terhadap perempuan tiap hari), bukankah perceraian adalah jalan yang lebih baik, untuk lebih menyelamatkan mental anak-anak dari melihat pertengkaran setiap hari? Atau menghindari ‘modelling’ bahwa sebagai seorang laki-laki, seseorang boleh melakukan apa saja terhadap perempuan (karena melihat sang ayah yang selalu melakukan kekerasan terhadap sang ibu), atau sebagai seorang perempuan, harus diam saja tatkala sang suami melakukan kekerasan terhadapnya (besar kemungkinan si anak perempuan akan mencontohnya). Penyakit yang akan terus menerus turun temurun bukan?

Sekarang mengenai seorang perempuan yang terus menerus sibuk membubuhkan bedak dan lain lain ke wajahnya.

Sepengetahuanku, di kultur patriarki ini, ada stereotipe bahwa perempuan itu harus cantik (agar mampu menarik perhatian laki-laki). Bagi para kaum perempuan yang tidak pede dengan yang mereka miliki, toh mereka hanya melakukan apa yang dituntut oleh masyarakat untuk selalu tampil cantik? Mengapa mereka yang disalahkan? Mengapa tidak mulai diubah saja cara berpikir masyarakat? Bahwa cantik luar itu tidak ada apa-apanya? Bahwa meningkatkan kemampuan intelektual itu jauh lebih bermakna daripada sekedar membubuhkan bedak dan lipstik? Dan hentikanlah itu iklan-iklan menggelikan di televisi yang memandang perempuan hanya dari kecantikan saja, dari kulit mulus saja, dari rambut yang lurus dan sehat saja! Agar kaum perempuan berhenti untuk hanya membubuhkan bedak, lipstik, body lotion ke seluruh tubuhnya. Agar kaum perempuan berhenti untuk membelanjakan uangnya hanya untuk benda-benda tersebut.

Hentikan juga itu iklan-iklan yang memposisikan perempuan hanya sebagai tukang masak! Dan dunia kapitalis akan berteriak-teriak dari mana mereka akan mendapatkan keuntungan? Ganti dengan iklan-iklan yang jauh lebih mendidik.

Kalau sampai terjadi kaum laki-laki merasa dikendalikan oleh perempuan. Nah ... itu berarti laki-lakinya yang tidak pede. Seperti juga kaum perempuan yang dikendalikan oleh laki-laki (untuk selalu melakukan apa pun yang laki-laki inginkan dari mereka) itu adalah orang-orang yang tidak pede juga.
Mengenai perempuan yang KONON diciptakan dari tulang rusuk laki-laki, sebagai kaum Muslim, baca deh buku Quran Menurut Perempuan tulisan Amina Wadud atau Setara di Hadapan Allah tulisan Riffat Hassan dan Fatima Mernissi.

Mengenai pendapatmu bahwa perempuan adalah satu bentuk keindahan yang diciptakan oleh Allah di dunia ini, well, kamu baca lagi deh mengapa dalam Al-Quran ada surat ANNISA. Itu bukan karena perempuan adalah satu bentuk keindahan, namun untuk menghormati kedudukan perempuan dalam masyarakat, yang kebetulan ketika Nabi Muhammad lahir tengah berada dalam masa jahiliyah di mana kedudukan perempuan sangat direndahkan. Allah ingin mengangkat harkat perempuan dengan turunnya surat tersebut, dan bukan untuk “hati-hatilah kepada kaum perempuan yang diciptakan dari tulang rusuk yang bengkok itu. BUKAN.

Untuk lebih lengkapnya baca artikel di sini
http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_comparison_full.htm
terlihat dalam artikel di sini bahwa tidak ada itu “HATI-HATILAH TERHADAP KAUM PEREMPUAN YANG AKAN MAMPU MENJATUHKAN MARTABATMU”.

Salam.
Nana P
http://afeministblog.blogspot.com
http://afemaleguest.blog.co.uk

Sucking People

This morning, my sister told me about her workmate whose husband wants to get married again (with silly reason to avoid doing adultery coz he has fallen in love with another woman!) This woman sounded very annoyed but couldn't complain coz she has been indoctrinated that a wife cannot prohibit the husband to be polygamous. "How could I prohibit him to do that if in the Al-Quran itself God stated that it is okay for men to have two, three, or four wives? Will I be sinful to prohibit my husband to get married again?"

I heaved a very deep breath when my sister told me about that. A pain attacked my heart.
And just now, I found a blogsite that I believe belong to an Indonesian person. One conspicous post I found there was about polygamy. He wrote that a woman doesn't have any right to prohibit the husband to get married again.

Those sucking people ...

How could they interpret the verses in Al-Quran as what they like (read only to give special privileges to men?) Why didn't they interpret it for everybody's fair privileges (both men and women).

Oh goodness, in this 21st century, there are still many selfish men in Muslim regions don't want to THINK by using everybody's common sense (not only for their own benefit).

I hate it. I hate it, I REALLY HATE IT.

(FYI, the blogger didn't give a chance to the blog readers to give comments. Coward!)

Friday, June 02, 2006

Diskusi RUU APP

Dari milis perempuan di http://groups.yahoo.com/group/perempuan

Transkrip talk show

Acara : Sahabat Perempuan
Tempat : Studio I Radio Suara Jombang FM
Tanggal : 30 Mei 2006
Waktu : 09.00 - 10.00 wib
Topik : Kontroversi RUU APP dalam Konteks Pluralisme Bangsa
Pembicara : 1. Drs.KH. Abdul Kholiq, SH,M.Hum (Ketua MUI Jombang)
2. Iva Cahyaningtyas (Kord. Advokasi WCC Jombang)
3. Aan Anshori (Kord. Divisi Kampanye ICDHRE Jombang/Islamic Center for Democracy and Human Rights Empowerment)
Moderator : Fian

=====================================================================

Mod: Selamat pagi kawan, tema kita dalam diskusi pagi ini adalah 'Kontroversi RUU APP dalam Konteks Pluralisme Bangsa' , saya akan ke pak Kholiq dulu sebagai ketua MUI, bagaimana pandangan anda terhadap RUU ini? Apa yang menjadi sorotan anda terhadap RUU ini? Yang bukan hanya menjadi perbinvcangan tapi juga perpecahan di berbagai kalangan?.

MUI: Baik, dari MUI pusat sampai daerah sebenarnya sangat-sangat mendukung agar Ruu ini segera disyahkan. Sebab itu nantinya akan menjadi payung hukum. Namun apa boleh buat karena di Indoneseian ini dengan kebhinnekaannya, keragamannya sebagaimana yang tercantum dalam al Qur'an Inna kholaqnakum min dzakin wa untsa wa ja'alnaakum syu'uban wa qobaaila li ta'arofu Inna akromakum indallohi atqokum., Alloh swt menciptakan manusia laki-2 dan perempuan , bersuku-2 dan berbangsa, sebagaimana bhinneka tunggal ika, adalah untuk saling mengenal, saling menghargai dan menghormati. Tapi disana ada kata-2..inna akromaku 'indallohi atqokum..yang mulia dihadapan alloh adalah orang yang bertaqwa. Sebenarnya RUU ini kalau dicermati sebetulnya memberikan keleluasaan, artinya mengayomi menjadi payung hukum bagi kawan-2 perempuan. Jadi bukannya mendiskreditkan tapi justru memberikan payung hukum agar negara kita menjadi negara yang aman tentram, terkendali, kondusif dalam lindungan Alloh SWT. Itu yang mendasari kita.

Mod: Lantas apa yang menjadi masukan MUI dalm RUU ini?

MUI: Yang tidak diperbolehkan adalah menumbar auratnya di depan umum sehingga menimbulkan nafsu atau syahwat, itu yang paling penting. Kalau kita berpendapat sebelum disyahkan tentunya perlu dipertimbangkan daerah-2 seperti Bali, Papua.Jangan dianggap sama, artinya ada pengecualian bagi daerah-2 seperti itu. Dimana Bali sebagai tempat wisata dan masyarakat Papua masih memakai koteka seperti itu. Dan kalau kita boleh bicara, sebagaimana yang pernah dilontarkan oleh Gusdur di media beberapa waktu yang lalu. GD pernah menyampaikan bahwa sebenarnya Islam itu juga mengajarkan tentang porno. Bahkan katanya ada ayat yang mengajarkan tentang Porno bahkan maha porno. Di alqur'an itu ada ayat menyusui...khawlaini kamilaini....berarti disitu orang perempuan mengeluarkan teteknya kan. Juga ada ayat hunna libasullakum wa antum libasullahunna...perempuan menjadi pakaian bagi laki-2 dan begitu juga sebaliknya. Juga ada ayat lain, nisaaukum khartsullakum..fa'tukhartsakum anna syi'tum..perempuan itu adalah sawah ladangmu maka pergaulilan mereka sesenang kamu. RUU ini nantinya diharapkan bisa menjadi payung hukum yang paling tidak bisa mengayomi orang-orang perempuan, sebetulnya al qur'an itu luar biasa, terutama terhadap perempuan. Ada surat an Nisa' (perempuan,red), yang perlu dicatat Islam terhadap perempuan itu sangat menghormati, jadi menurut saya tidak ada arahan untuk mengecilkan perempuan. Rasululloh sudah mebuktikan itu, .

Mod: Kalau tadi bicara tentang pengecualian, MUI melihat pengecualiannya akan seperti apa? Karena kita ketahui banyak masyarakat pedesaan di sekitar kita, masih sering mandi di sungai secara bersama. Apakah akan ada pengecualian bagi mereka?

MUI: Ya, formatnya nanti biar dipikir oleh para pakar-2nya lah. Jadi yang dimaksud porno disini adalah kalau memang dipertontonkan di muka orang banyak tapi maaf-2 kalau seperti mandi di sungai, bali atau papua, itu perlu dikecualikan. Harapan kami dari MUI ketika RUU ini sudah menjadi UU, tujuan kami tidak ingin mendiskreditkan pihak-2 tertentu.

Mod: Oke, saya ke mas Aan, sebagai pihak yang kontra terhadap RUU ini. Gimana ini?

Aan : Secara substansi (penolakan terhadap pornografi,red) tidak ada yang berbeda dari paparan pak Kholiq tadi. Karena memang baik yang pro maupun yang kontra terhadap RUU ini ketemu dalam satu titik; yaitu sama-2 menolak adanya pornografi dan pornoaksi itu sendiri. Hanya kemudian cara menjawabnya yang berbeda. Saya cenderung menolak RUU ini karena kalau kita baca pasal-per pasal itu ada pasal yang sama sekali tidak melakukan penghormaatan terhadap kebhinekaan dan keberagaman kita.

Mod : Contohnya?

Aan : Coba dilihat dalam pasal 25 RUU APP. 'Setiap orang dilarang mempertontonkan bagian tubuh tertentu yang sensual" Dalam penjelasannya, bagian tubuh tertentu yang sensual itu meliputi alat kelamin, paha, pinggul, pantat, pusar, dan payudara perempuan baik yang kelihatan sebagian maupun seluruhnya. Intinya apa, implikasi dari ini akan sngat dahsyat. Saudara-2 kita di papua yang tudak mendapatkan pemerataan hasil pembangunan, dengan itu mungkin mereka memakai koteka, atau karena memang sudah budayanya, ini akan kena oleh RUU APP ini, juga tradisi-tradisi di sebagian wilayah Jomban, dimana kita seringkali kita menjumpai di desa-desa ada banyak perempuan yang hanya memakai BH sewaktu nyantai di lingkungannya. Saya sepakat dengan beliau ada pengecualian-2,tapi kan ya lucu kalau kita akan mendapati banyak sekali pengecualian untuk menghormati kebudayaan kita, lantas buat apa RUU itu dibuat. (Diskusi terpotong oleh telpon yang nyasar di jalur online radio,red)

Mod: Oke silahkan diteruskan mas Aan.

Aan : Jadi disitu titik berbeda kita. Saya berkali-kalingomong ke kawan-2 yang pro RUU, mbok yao RUU ini dibaca dulu, dikritisi implikasinya nanti seperti apa. Contoh lain yang akibat ditimbulkan dari pasal ini adalah ibu yang neteki anaknya di tempat dengan cara memperlihatkan sebagai payudara akan terkena pasal ini. Pertama dia berada di tempat umum bukan di ruang privat, kedua dia mempertontonkan sebagian payudaranya, itu sudah memenuhi unsur hukum yang mengharuskan terkena pasal itu. Dalam konteks warisan budaya bangsa kita, patung-patung atau relief yang memperlihatkan bagian tubuh tertentu itu sebagai obyeknya, yang banyak kita jumpai di beberapa candi, ketika RUU ini disahkan harus dirobohkan dan dibongkar. Apakah implikasi ini juga dipikirkan. Kita ngomong hukum lho,

Mod: Ya sebenarnya titik tolaknya sama, menolak pornografi tapi kemudian jalan yang dipilih ini berbe, dan cukup mencolok tampaknya. Ada upaya penyeragaman budaya jika RUU ini diberlakukan. Apa MUI juga potensi penyeragaman ini?
Yang jelas sudah ada bocoran yang saya dapat, draft itu akan dirobah karena ada banyak pertimbangan-2. Jadi ketika didok awal Juli sudah banyak yang berubah karena dipertimbangkan betul. Yang penting ada kemaslahatan begitu lah, jika memang nantinya seperti yang diomongkan oleh mas Aan ya harus kita godok yang lebih baik lagi.
Aan: Ya.jangan didukung lah, Pak Kholiq. Kasihan dengan sodara-2 kita yang di Papua dan tempat lain
MUI: Tadi kan kita sudah kita muqoddimahi (diawali,red) bahwa harus ada pengecualian. Jika tidak, bagaimana itu orang-2 Papua, Bali dll. Makanya kita akhirnya menyerahkan kepada pansus bagaimana ini nanti lebih baiknya.
Aan: Dan saya mungkin bisa tambahkan lagi implikasinya, bukan hanya budaya saja. Saya yakin pak Kholiq orang pesantren yang punya banyak santri. Implikasi terhadap pesantren adalah beberapa kitab-kitab yang sudah umum dingajikan, terutama yang masuk dalam kategori kamasutra seperti Kitab al Nikah dan Qurrotul 'Uyun itu juga nggak boleh diajarkan karena berisi eksploitasi terhadap yang dilarang dalam RUU ini, lho ini kan kacau kalau gitu. Jadi atas nama RUU ini jika disahkan maka kitab-kitab yang selama ini sudah seattled ini harus diberangus dan tidak boleh dijual bebas dan tidak boleh dikaji secara sembarangan. Jadi siap-siap nggak boleh ngaji ini pada waktu bulan ramadhan nih pak ha..ha ini kan berbahaya
Mod: Oke kita terima telpon dulu...hallo..
Penelpon: Halo ini bu Catur, saya ingin menanggapi soal meneteki yan termasuk porno, saya ingi menginformasikan bahwa sudah ada BH yang ada lubang pas diputingnya sehingga seorang ibu tidak perlu memperlihatkan sebagia payudaranya, memang ada yang tidak puas jika belum mengeluarkan semuanya. Jadi bagaimana caranya agar membuat perempuan supaya mempunyai rasa malu (melakukan hal tersebut,red) agar supaya bisa lebih disembunyikan jika mau neteki.Tolong dijelaskan.

Mod: Terimakasih, mungkin bisa langsung ditanggapi.

MUI: Teima kasih, jadi nantinya kalau RUU ini disyahkan orang neteki ini harus disediakan ruang khusus seperti orang merokok di Jakarta. Bisa jadi seperti itu, sebab jika tidak, ini akan sulit. Saya pernah lihat ada laki-laki bertengkar dengan seorang perempuan yang neteki anaknya, kejadiannya di atas bis waktu itu. Ibu keberatan dengan asap rokok yang dihisap oleh laki-2 tersebut karena kebetulan dia disebelahnya. " Mas kasihan anak kecil saya (kena asap,red)' kata ibu itu. Dengan entengnya laki-laki itu menjawab ' Saya juga kasihan dengan 'wakil kepala' (penis,red) akibat melihat payudara ibu jadi tolong ditutupi itu'. Saya Cuma tertawa aja mendengarnya dari belakang.

Iva: Saya mungkin bisa tanggapi itu. Menyusui itu adalah bagian dari hak reproduksi bagi perempuan setelah mengandung dan melahirkan. Ketika RUU ini disahkan mungkin ada area khusus yang dibangun. Jadi tidak boleh menyusui kalau tidak ditempat itu. Jika dilanggar ini bisa termasuk kriminalisasi. Bayangkan, seorang ibu menyusui bayinya sendir malah dapat dipenjara. Hebat benar negara ini. Dari cerita pak Kholiq tadi sebenarnya RUU itu tidak pada perempuannya tapi pada pikiran porno yang ada diotak kepala masing-masing. Apa yang dilakukan ibu tersebut adalalah menjalankan hak reproduksinya, menyusui anaknya. Disisi lain justru dianggap pornoaksi.

Aan: betapa sia-sianya sebuah RUU ini jika hanya sibuk ngurusi persoalan ini...waste of time, waste of money. Kalau ujungnya cuma pengen bikin tempat khusus menyusui, dengan asumsi orang menyusui bisa memprovokasi birahi laki-2, ya mendingan dana pembahasan RUU ini aja langsung digunakan bangun itu. Tapi saya setuju dengan Iva, ada hal krusial yang musti dicermati, saya memelihat RUU ini dilatar belakangi oleh sebuah asumsi yang nggak bener, menganggap kebobrokan moral bangsa ini hanya disebabkan oleh kebejatan moralitas kaum perempuannya. Itu kan gak bener. Kita harus akui kebobrokan bangsa ini juga juga banyak dikontribusi oleh ulah para pemimpin yang nggak mempedulikan kesejahteraan warganya. Kalau kita menganggap perempuan sebagai setan lah, penggoda laki- dan segudang stereotype yang lain. Emang kita lahir bukan dari perempuan?! Atasnama mengagungkan perempuan makanya mereka harus direstriksi hak dan kebebasannya. Ini kan kacau. Demi agar supaya perempuan tidak memprovokasi libido laki-laki maka perempuan harus dikendalikan. Logika ini salah. Jika kita ketangkap karena mencuri sepeda motor, masak kita menolak ditahan dan minta agar sepeda motornya saja yang ditahan dengan tuduhaan memprovokasi kita untuk mencuri. Logika macam apa ini? Persoalan terbesar yang dihadapi bangsa ini adalah kebodohan kemiskinan. Akibat kemiskinan banyak orang yang tidak bisa hidup secara layak. Jangankan untuk membeli BH dengan teknologi seperti yang disampaikan bu Catur tadi sampaikan, untuk hidup layak minimal aja sudah susah. Apa ya ibu-2 yang tidak bisa membeli BH ini gara-gara nggak punya uang harus dihukum ketika sedang neteki. Saya membayangkan kenapa jadi ribet seperti ini?. Ada beberapa kebudayaan di negara kita yang menganggap memperlihatkan sebagian payudara itu nggak apa-2, bukan barang tabu. Dan itu harus kita hormati karena mereka punya standart masing-masing.Ada relativisme ukuran yang tidak bisa kita paksakan untuk sama. Nah RUU mau melakukan penyeragamaan terhadap nilai-nilai lokal ini. Itu jelas-2 menyalahi konsep (pluralitas) yang ada dalam alqur'an ya kan, pak? Waja'alnakum syu'uban wa qobaaila lita'arofu. Tuhan sendiri tidak mengandaikan dunia ini hanya ada satu suku. Makanya itu (penyeragamaan,red) nonsens. Persoalan moralitas itu tidak bisa dipisahkan dengan 2 persoalan besar tadi, kemiskinan dan kebodohan. Jika sepakat dengan hipotesis ini maka RUU ini tidak akan bisa menjawab problem moralitas. Disamping mungkin sudah menjadi budayanya, bisa jadi orang papua pakai koteka karena tidak mampu membeli pakaian layak akibat deraan pemiskinan struktural dari pusat meskipun kekayaan mereka sangat melimpah ruah. Apa ya adil kalau mereka ditangkap gara-2 pakai koteka?

Mod: saya bergeser dulu ke mbak Iva, bener nggak sih sasarannya tembaknya hanya perempuan seperti menyusui tadi? Kenapa tidak laki-laki yang harus dirubah?

Iva: Sebenarnya tadi sudah ada kesepahaman tentang bagaimana pornografi ini tidak ada di bumi kita, seperti itu.Tapi yang perlu dicatat sebelum ada RUU ini perempuan sejak dulu yang selalu dijadikan korbannya. Dimana dia terhimpit oleh kapitalisasi yang dilakukan oleh negara, disatu sisi dia akan terbentur dari sisi hukumnya juga ketika RUU ini disahkan. Inul misalnya sebagai pekerja seni yang juga mengais rejeki di ibukota misalnya harus dicekal oleh RUU ini. Apakah negara pernah memikirkan nasib keluarga yang bergantung dari pekerjaannya sekarang?.Terus bagaimana kita mengungkap RUU ini secara substansi akan mengorbankan perempuan, karena dari awal pornografi masih dimaknai bahwa yang menyebabkan adalah perempuan bukan bagaimana seorang itu menganggap itu pornografi atau tidak. Karena ada sebuah pemaknaan yang berbeda terkait pornografi dan itu terletak pada mindset individu bukan pada perempuannya.

Mod: Jadi sebenarnya WCC sendiri sepakat pornografi itu dilarang?

Iva: ya memang sepakat tapi caranya seperti apa? Kalau kita sering menganalogikan ini ada yang sakit panas tapi dikasih obat lain (bukan khusus obat panas,red).

Mod: jadi secara substansi apa yang seharusnya diatur oleh RUU ini sehingga tidak lagi merugikan perempuan?

Iva: Mungkin ada hal-2 yang bisa diungkap disini, terkaut bagaimana pronografi itu ada di media-media. Lantas siapa sih yang membuat itu?dalam budaya patriakhi, itu yang membuat adalah laki-2, jadi sebuah konstruk, saya rasa. Oleh karena perempuan harus tunduk dalam konstruk itu. Saya mendapati , dalam blue film, perempuan itu banyak lho yang menjadi korban trafficking, dia dipaksa untuk berbuat seperti itu. Jadi bukan dia yang menyodorkan diri untuk menjadi pemainnya.

Mod: Mas Aan poin-poin apa saja yang seharusnya diatur dala RUU ini?

Aan: Saya rasa RUU itu menghapus poin-poin yang mengancam pluralisme yang ada di negara ini. Sederhananya, poin yang harus dieliminasi adalah pasal yang ingin menyeragamkan, menstandarisasi atas apa yang harus dipakai dan tidak boleh dipakai oleh bangsa Indonesia.

Mod: Jadi isinya apa dong RUU tadi?

Aan: Mungkin lebih mengatur soal distribusi barang-barang yang masuk dalam kategori pornografi. Tapi sebenarnya upaya yang harus dilakukan oleh pemerintah adalah optimalisasi UU yang sudah ada, UU Pers, Perfilman, Penyiaran dan KUHP. Itu sudah jelas diatur mengenai pornografi. Argumen kontranya kan biasanya, menganggap UU tersebut sudah tidak memadai lagi. Lho saya balik bertanya, yang salah itu contentnya atau law enforcer-nya? Jadi kalau mau benahi yang disitu. Bagi saya yang harus kita dorong adalah aparat penegak hukumnya agar bersungguh-sungguh menjalankan UU.

Mod: Jadi itu artinya RUU ini nggak perlu ada?

Aan: Kalau mau jawab secara radikal, ya nggak perlu, karena mafsadah (sisi negatifnya,red)-nya lebih besar.Karena yang kita pertaruhkan adalah pluralitas bangsa ini. Pepatah jawa mengatakan mburu uceng kelangan delek (mencari sesuatu yang nilainya jauh lebih kecil dibanding harga yang harus kita bayar). Ini sama dengan kita mau mengusir tikus di lumbung padi kita dengan bom. Tikusnya mungkin mati tapi kita akan kehilangan padi kita karena habis kena bom. Jadi usulam bom itu agak nggak masuk akal, saya kira.

Mod: Gimana pak Kholiq semakin panas diskusinya pagi ini.

MUI: (terdiam sejenak) Setelah melihat pro kontra ini saya melihat pengesahan ini akan diulur-ulur, sehingga kalau nanti disahkan kita harapkan untuk betul-betul arif bisa mengakomodir yang pro dan kontra, karena kita kembali ke bhinneka tunggal ika.

Mod: Jadi menurut MUI RUU ini harus tetap diterbitkan?

MUI: Tetap diterbitkan, tetapi nggih maaf tetap mengakomodir kedua pendapat tersebut. Jadi nanti sekiranya tidak akan terjadi perpecahan. Ini kan ngeman, jangan sampai kebhinnekaan ini menjadi runyam. Saya sependapat dengan ibu tadi (Iva,red) bahwa perempuan sering menjadi korban. Makanya saya berharap DPR bisa mengakomodir pendapat yang masuk sehingga negara indonesia bisa menjadi sebuah negara yang baldatun thoyyibatun warobbun ghofur, negara yang gemah ripah loh jinawi toto tentrem kertoraharjo. Dijauhkan dari segala macam mara bahaya.

Mod: Jafi menurut MUI apa yang harus ada dalam RUU itu?

MUI: Jadi saya pikir tadi sudah dijelaskan oleh Pak Aan tadi. Intinya yang pro dan kontra RUU ini sepakat kita sikat. Sama-2 ada titik temunya disitu. Bahkan saya sependapat, definisi porno itu apa sih? Kadang-2, maaf, secara pribadi, mungkin juga paK Aan juga ya, kalau melihat wanita walaupun disitu toh sudah tertutup rapat, pake jilab, tapi maaf pakaiannya ketat sehingga menimbulkan syahwat. Saya membaca beberapa definisi porno itu juga nggak jelas juga.Yang penting bagaimana kebhinekaan itu harus tetap kita jaga. Kata Rhoma Irama, 135 juta penduduk Indonesia, terdiri dari banyak suku bangsa itulah Indonesia. Ada Sunda, Jawa, Bali, Madura, Papua, Irian Jaya, dan banyak lagi yang lainnya. Bhinneka Tunggal Ika awal negara kita Indonesia.

Aan : wah jarang ini pak kiyai yang bisa lagu ini ha...ha...

MUI: Intinya kalau pun tetap akan disahkan, tolong yang diatas, DPR RI, harus benar-benar arif (pak kholik memberikan intonasi yang cukup tinggi pada kata terakhir tadi, red) dan bijaksana.

Iva: Saya juga mau tambahkan, bukan hanya laki-laki saja yang menjadi warga negara tapi juga perempuan. Yang ingin saya tambahkan, kekerasan dan anarkis seringkali dilakukan oleh kelompok pro APP terhadap kelompok kontra, bahkan kadang-2 mereka tidak mengetahui kenapa mereka harus pro ataupun kontra. Pendidikan kepada masyarakat terkait isu sangat kurang.

Mod: Ya nampaknya waktu kita juga mepet. Terakhir apa iniharapannya terhadap RUU ini?

MUI: Harapan kami tidak lepas dari ayat alqur'an. Disana Alloh swt sudah menggariskan, audzubillahi minasy syaithonirrojim bismillahirrohmanirrohim Inna kholaqnakum min dzakin wa untsa wa ja'alnaakum syu'uban wa qobaaila li ta'arofu Inna akromakum indallohi atqokum. Alloh menciptakan manusia laki-2 dan perempuan, bersuku-suku, berbangsa-2, adat istiadatnya juga berbeda. Tetapi disana diwadahi dalam bentuk negara. Mudah-mudahan negara yang baldatun thoyyibatu wa robbun ghofur.

Mod: Kalau mas Aan, sebagai kubu yang kontra?

Aan: Kalau isi RUU masih seperti ini, ya kita akan tolak karena ini akan mencederai dan membahayakan pluralitas, dan berpotensi terhadap disintegrasi bangsa. Itu poin pertama. Kedua, saya sepakat dengan pak Kholiq tadi bahwa ke depan Indonesia harus menjadi negara yang baldatun thoyyibatu wa robbun ghofur. Dalam bayangan saya, kondisi negara itu (baldatun thoyyibatu wa robbun ghofur,red) ditandai dengan tidak adanya diskriminasi terhadap entnis, agama, jenis kelamin dan lain-lain. Yang ketiga, pencegahan pornografi itu sudah cukup dengan mengoptimalkan UU yang sudah ada. Jika harus ada UU baru, itu mungkin secara spesifik hanya mengatur tentang distribusi barang-2 yang masuk dalam kategori pornografi, agar tidak bisa diakses secara sembarang oleh individu yang menurut hukum tidak diperbolehkan.

Mod: Kalau dari WCC sendiri?

Iva: Kalau bicara soal moralitas bangsa, dalam konteks global saya kira jauh lebih penting membicarakan moralitas apa yang harus dibangun oleh bangsa ini ketimbang mengurusi bagaimana cara perempuan itu berpakaian. Terimakasih

Mod: Baik. Terimakasih atas kehadirannya di studio SJ FM.