
Dengan adanya kejadian monas atas FPI dan Ahmadiah kita dapat menelaah suatu yang mendalam tentang apa itu sebenarnya topeng dibalik demokrasi (humanisme, konstitusi dan hak asasi manusia) yang menjadi kecap nomor satu dari kaum munafik di negeri ini yang mereka ambil pakai dari kaum kafir di eropa (yang notabene adalah kapitalisme riba yahudi, baca juga konfirmasinya di era muslim digest edisi koleksi 7, yang menarik juga diakhir majalah ini dia mengutip buku sistem dajjal dari ahmad thompson, seorang muslim inggris-orang kulit putih yang berprofesi sebagai lawyer, dia adalah fuqara shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi). sebuah dagelan politik tentang ahmadiah yang sudah jelas asal muasalnya dari pakistan ini adalah hasil bentukan agen rahasia inggris di anak benua india.
saya ambilkan suatu cuplikan dari BUKU ESOTERIC DEVIATION IN ISLAM, dimana buku tersebut membuka simpul-simpul kebohongan dan kesetanan dari kapitalisme riba (uang kertas) dan fiskal state (demokrasi, pluralisme palsu, nihilisme, humanisme palsu, konstitusi, nasionalisme, hak asasi manusia palsu, bank islam, partai islam, obligasi syariah, asuransi syariah) yang semua di ambli pakai oleh muslim hari ini tanpa mempertanyakannya bahwa semua ini adalah berlawanan dengan islam di madinah, yang disusupkan oleh kaum kafir ditengah muamalat muslim. jadi masalahnya adalah riba (pemberlakuan uang kertas dan bunga perbankan) inilah agama baru yang disebut KAPITALISME dengan demokrasi sebagai kacungnya (termasuk orang-orang yang mendukungnya), ini yang segera harus dibubarkan dan ditinggalkan oleh kaum muslim.
Dari apa yang kita suka ternyata banyak sekali kemudharatannya yang dibenci Allah, dan dari apa yang kita tidak suka ternyata di balik itu banyak hal yang berguna yang di ridhai Allah, dan cara hidup islam sejati sajalah yang di ridhai Allah, bukan yang lain yang telah tercampur! semoga tulisan ini bermanfaat..
Esoteric humanism
The humanity of humanism is determined by a fixed interpretation of nature, history, the world and the entities in their totality. All humanism is therefore grounded upon metaphysics. It is metaphysical. The understanding of man limited to the vital experience of man is a negation of any high spiritual value. Man is capable of reaching beyond a mechanical and practical definition of space and time. But if trapped by the technical understanding of the world, man will fix meanings of nature and himself according to his technical project. The result will be a subjective representation of himself, but not himself.
Acting cannot be valued merely by its utility, but by worshipping Allah. To measure acting according to its utility is to judge it by a standard to which it does not correspond. This is like measuring the capacity of a fish to swim by seeing how it can live on dry land. To abandon utilitarianism does not mean becoming non-practical. The rigour of pragmatism in contrast to that of worshipping, is not a comparison between artificial technical or exact principles and ideas on the one hand and non-technical and inexact principles and ideas on the other. Worshipping involves first the negation of other-than-Allah, that is, the abandonment of those principles and ideas that appear as obstacles to the submission to Allah. This is something very precise that enables us to fulfil our duties with Allah. But to try to be practical disables us from fulfilling our duties, because other-than-obedience comes in between. We must free ourselves from the technical interpretation of acting. The helplessness of the technical scientific understanding of the world can only be overcome by the remembering of Allah that frees the will of man from the self-imposed technical project and restores the will of man over creation.
The humanistic way of thinking maintains that Islam has to prove its predicates before the ‘sciences’. The Muslim humanists are hounded by the fear that Islam will lose prestige and validity if it is not justified by sciences. And they believe that the most effective way of doing it is by ‘elevating’ Islam to the rank of a science. So they speak in terms of the scientific proofs of Qur’an, or Islamic sciences of fiqh, Shari‘ah or Tasawwuf. Today you can become a PhD in Tasawwuf in some Arab Universities. But such an effort is an abandonment of the Deen of Islam. Not being a science does not mean being unscientific or irrational. What it means is that Islam belongs to another level superior to that of sciences. The purity of sciences, that is, the objectification of sciences consists of providing a uniform accessibility of everything to everyone. This process amounts to the erasing of the will of people. In order to restore it we need to remember Allah.
Science cannot validate everything. Recently a Reuters report dated 16th August 2000 stated that the dark work presses on:
“…pigs offer another prospect. Because they are similar in size and other aspects of biology to humans, they have been seen as a potential source of organs and tissue for transplant into people. Last March, a team at PPL Therapeutics Plc in Edinburgh, Scotland, said they had produced a litter of five piglets using cloning technology. On Wednesday, the science journal Nature made public their report, to be published later this month.”
Meanwhile they worry about retro pig viruses which may make their way into humankind as a result of this ‘science’ which fears not God, only death. For humanism, death is the only real evil. Death is the end and they do not want it at any cost. Any means are therefore human and are justified.
The Muslim fears Allah and not death. He would rather die in submission, than with the heart of a pig. Unfortunately the disparity between humanistic science and Islam is too vast to be comprehended by this Edinburgh scientist and his supporters. Those modernist Muslims who supported science as the tool for the reform of Islam, misunderstood terribly the background of modern science. They took economics, sociology, biology, etc. as the means to a humanistic progress that was anti-Islamic at its core. But they could not see it.
To be human in the sense of being civilised and responding to good behaviour means, in the language of the 20th century, to be a good law-abiding citizen, a tax-payer, and a voter in a democratic state. To be inhuman, on the other hand, means to be brutal and to behave boldly with regard to the ideal citizen of the modern state. What is in question when we say human is not the gender or the species in comparison to animals. What is in question is the behaviour in reference to the state, that is a peculiar interpretation of right and wrong based upon a peculiar interpretation of man, nature, the world and history. That means that every possible form of humanism is based on a metaphysics which presumes an interpretation of things without any reference to Allah. The state and the banks cannot be human by reference to their scientific enquiring and findings, but only with reference to Allah. And nothing else matters more.
Once we accept the metaphysical frame of a version of humanism we admit the intrinsic possibility of other versions of humanism as well. We could equally make everybody be seen as in-human on the basis of a completely different type of humanism based on marxist rhetoric or mere environmental concerns. What matters to us is that this way of judging has no validity before Islam. Islam in that sense denies humanism. To deny humanism does not mean that we affirm inhuman, cruel and barbaric behaviour, but rather the negation of the metaphysical grounds on which their judgment of behaviour can be made. Islam is above all that. Islam is not based on metaphysical speculation, but on submission to Allah.
If human behaviour is isolated from submission to Allah, then we enter into secular metaphysics. Any social or political or biological definition of man is a reification of man, which prepares the ground for a secular explanation of reality. It also allows us to explain reality in terms of esoteric and exoteric domains, and prepares for the invention of a metaphysical god. Esotericism is not found accidentally at the heart of the historical development of humanism and what is called human rights. Human rights is rooted in esotericism.
Islam not only denies humanism, but more importantly it denies the possibility of such a diminishing view of man. If man is not given his due with Allah he is reduced to a utilitarian tool. And equally if he is reduced to a utilitarian tool then Allah is denied. Islam denies capitalism which is the standard of modern humanism: there is no such thing as a good capitalist in Islam. The christians and this society in general have accepted the good banker, and today bankers are philanthropists. This is a nihilistic symptom of esotericism. But Allah is the judge. We are not the judges, we are the judged, which means that we love with the love of Allah and we hate with the hate of Allah, we like what He likes and we hate what He hates, we allow what He allows and we forbid what He forbids.
The acceptance of the banker within the boundaries of humanism is the proof of its falsehood. Because we do not accept the logic that accepts usury alongside good behaviour we could be portrayed as being installed in irrationalism. And because we are against the capitalist ‘values’ upheld by human rights we could be portrayed as having no values. But for us, what they call human, or rights, or logical, or values, or good are empty of meaning. Their bizarre efforts to prove objectively the impunity of usury manifests the artificial nature of their values. To ground these values they have to resort to “I” or “we” decide, or “I” or “we” say. They cannot call upon Allah and for this reason humanism will have to oppose Islam forever.
The humanistic morality is the morality of “I do what I can”: a tailor-made ethic that can accommodate any pragmatic behaviour. Nothing that accepts this predicament can be inhuman or unethical. Such subjective vision can accommodate any behaviour. It is an implicit surrender to the almighty technical ordering of a mass society embodied by the state. Any variation or reform of behaviour has to resort to the technical power of the state. This adds to the perplexity and helplessness of the individual.
To call upon Allah is the only way of abandoning this humanistic prison. To call upon Allah is the only way of regaining the capacity to act. It implies the rejection of the terms and conceptual languages used to justify the unjustifiable: usury and the state. Our new language must be based on the Qur’an and our behaviour must be modelled on Rasulullah, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Freedom of religion does not exist, only freedom of consciousness of religion. There is no freedom to practise Islam within any state, because Islam implies the abolition of the state. What they call freedom of religion is to limit Islam to personal and cultural behaviour. To accept the term ‘tolerance’ is the equivalent of affirming the technical dominance of the state over Islam, which implies the direct admission that the law of the state can override Islamic Law. When we are asked to be tolerant we are being asked to give up our religion and to follow theirs: humanism.
Human rights is the 20th century foundation for a world state and a world religion. Marc Fumaroli of the Académie Française saw that human rights has become “the religion of human rights” on the nihilist ruin of the traditional Europe:
“France and its universal language from 1784, in the very spirit of one of the most faithful subjects to the king, had nevertheless disassociated themselves from the royal roots. They were already abstractions ready to receive the new energy of the religion of human rights.”162
Esotericism and the philosophy of human rights
Once it is established that to be against human rights does not necessarily mean to be inhuman, we are ready to look at the philosophy of human rights again and it is in fact conceivable that a philosophy like this, that attempts to be above Allah’s Revelation and the application of His Law, must be, in fact, inhuman. The idea of Islamic human rights, like other modernist fabrications such as Islamic banks, is yet another form and effort, to misguide the Muslims into the Esoteric Deviation. And again, to deny the existence of Islamic human rights does not mean that Islam does not bring the best for mankind, but on the contrary, the truth is that only Allah’s Law can preserve the dignity of believing men and women.
Human rights is being used legally above all nation states as if it were a world constitution, waiting for a world state to be implemented. It is already known that the ideas of Liberté, egalité, fraternité were to operate in a Republique Universel, that is a world state. Now human rights as an instrument of the world state is enough to make us to rethink their whole philosophy once more.
But not everybody today agrees with human rights.
Del Valle writes:
“This mixing of leninist-stalinist intellectual terrorism and of puritan-protestant moralism readapted to the new humanitarist religion has generated, at the end, what another Academician, Alain Peyrefitte, names the “fundamentalism of the Rights of Man”, truly a weapon of subversion designed to discredit all patriotic sentiment and beyond, to destroy the legitimacy of the nation-states. This new universalist fundamentalism, …means above all, ending the freedom of expression and also, directing the consciousness in themselves to establish a dictatorship of spirits, by means of a mediatic brain washing.”163
The imposition of human rights has been denounced as an ideological and moral dictatorship, with the characteristic of eliminating the classical dichotomy friend/enemy into a more legalistic frame of police/criminal giving the implicit capacity to demonise any idea that tends to disqualify their world vision. Thus, a principle of ‘political correctness’ has been introduced to symbolise the one-mindness of this humanist philosophy. Their tolerance stops when the other does not accept their fundamentalism. They alone can define who is intolerant. The usurious banks are not intolerant or inhuman. Yet, they are criminal to Allah and to the Muslims. Not paying taxes, not paying interest on the mortgage, or not accepting a world state order is defined as inhuman and can bring anyone to prison or death — if he refuses prison. The deadly moral of Marat and Robespierre, ‘no freedom for the enemies of freedom’ carried on today under the formula of ‘no tolerance for the enemies of tolerance’ or a more common ‘no democracy for the enemies of democracy’ — think of Algeria — will support the establishment of a world state and a World Bank which are already there.
What is the punishment reserved for those who still think their religion is true and they want to practise it? They are told that their ‘politically incorrect’ views have to be modified for the benefit of the majority who have other views. The validation of this argument being universal, I have no choice but to abandon my religion. This argument does not allow one to argue that banking is a religious practice. Economics, being outside the contingent word of religion that they have created, is outside criticism. It cannot be judged by the same measure. Economics is above religion and therefore above the issue of tolerance. Economics places into the domain of the scientifically correct that which in other domains would be a dogma. Taking usury as a dogma, and taking the universal establishment of a world state as a dogma, their views are no different from any other religion whose fundamentalism must be tamed by tolerance. But this cannot happen because the ‘brotherhood of mankind’ and human rights are not neutral, they are a religion in disguise and tolerance is its demonising weapon.
AN ISLAMIC CRITIQUE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Any engagement with Islamic Law inevitably reveals that it is opposed to human rights. However, the lack in our Law of human rights is not seen within Islam as a deficiency or in any way negative. Islamic Law has other ways of protecting human dignity. Human rights were created to protect the individual against the overpowering centralised state. But the state is as alien to us as human rights are. Therefore we never felt in need of a mechanism to protect us against something that did not exist. Our Laws, being given to us by Allah, are not man-made and thus open to human error.
Human rights can only exist in a society dominated by the state and with a positive and modernist legal system. Islam is free from all that. The argument of how the Muslims can comply with human rights within their religion, can only be seen within the parameters of a reform of Islam. It has never occurred to the reformers that it is society that needs to change, not Islam.
The debate on human rights always excludes the crime of usury at the heart of capitalism. The Islamic position is clear. The humanist society is sick with usurious banks. People cannot be free under such a regime. If the humanistic democratic society does not have mechanisms to eliminate the banks, we, as Muslims, have an obligation to eliminate such barbaric and inhuman acts from society. The humanist society does not comply with Islamic Law and this is what matters to Muslims.
The attempt to create Islamic human rights, is part of the attempt to make Islam ‘conform’ with modernity. There is a significant trend towards human rights enterprises, among them:
The Permanent Arab Commission on Human Rights (1969)
The Draft Declaration for an Arab Charter of Human Rights, issued by the League of Arab States (1971)
The Draft Covenant on Human Rights produced by the Baghdad Conference on the Conference of the Union of Arab Jurists (1979)
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, issued by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (1990)
The Draft Islamic Constitution, issued by al-Azhar University.
On a legal level the issue of human rights in Islam relates to constitutionalism. Constitutionalism has been the historical front of the anti-Khalifate program. It was associated with the breakdown of Dar al-Islam. Today we have a number of ‘Islamic constitutions’. One of the most notorious is the constitution of Iran. This constitution has sections guaranteeing individual human rights, which are set within a system of competing institutions that bear a great resemblance to those other constitutions. Some of these key institutions are the parliament, the tax system, and the central bank. From a methodological point of view the system operates under very similar guidelines to other constitutional models, for example, the Fifth French Republic or indeed, the constitution of the United States.
Esotericism and constitutionalism
The constitutions have been an essential tool of esotericisation. Constitutions challenged the validity of the religious law, and provided the required political justification to the state. They redefined freedom in terms of political docility. Their new morals, like toleration, peace and security became subsidiary values to the categorical imperatives of the state and the development of capitalism. Constitutions became the essential tools of capitalism.
WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONALISM?
The constitution itself is just the result of the deliberation of a group of people on paper, which itself can be altered or amended from time to time as demanded. The constitution then rests on acquiescence, whether it is established by referendum or by tacit approval or even by force. The object of the constitution, was to limit the arbitrary action of the government, to guarantee rights of the governed, and to define the operation of the sovereign power.
The essence of constitutionalism is the affirmation that religion or religions do not have a law, and even if they have one, man-made laws are better than those originated by the prophet or prophets. Constitutions emerged against a background of customary and religious law and came to replace them. This is why a fundamental hostility to religion or rather organised traditional religion is implicit in constitutionalism. The whole process was summed up by Figgis in the phrase: ‘Political Liberty is the residuary legatee of ecclesiastical animosities.’ Constitutional supporters did of course present the constitution as a defence of religion, in the name of religious freedom. What it in fact protected was a religious diversity that guaranteed absolute validity to none. But if religion is not absolute it is not religion at all, but becomes at most a group of feelings and inclinations of thought with no practical relevance to the main aspects of political and economic life. And this is how constitutions transformed religions under their rule.
To understand constitutionalism it is important to understand the relative worth assigned to its symbolic values. It is interesting that the idea of equality expressed in all the constitutions has emerged in the form of a protest against what were perceived as inequalities. Thus the claim of the constitution was a claim to the abolition of privilege. It was the response of a class, or people pressured or shut off from the enjoyment of their rights, by another class or people.
The men who drew up the Declaration of Independence in the US which laid down as a self-evident truth that all men are equal were slaves-owners. They did not mean to assert an abstract proposition which implied that their slaves were equal to themselves. What they actually meant was that they themselves were as good as King George, and had as much right to govern themselves as their kinsmen in England.
Similarly the Declaration of the Rights of Man passed by the National Assembly in France in 1789 was in reality a counterblast to the supposed assertion of Louis XIV, “L’Etat c’est moi”, and a repudiation of his claim to an absolute control over the life, liberty and happiness of his subjects. It was ‘considering that ignorance, neglect, or contempt of human rights are the sole cause of public misfortunes and corruptions of government’ that the National Assembly resolved to set forth in a solemn declaration the ‘natural, imprescriptible and inalienable’ rights of men and affirmed that ‘men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights.’
What these examples demonstrate is that the arrival of constitutionalism was not an abstract quest for abstract perfect values, but a quest for political power against the existing one, which used these values as tools for the obtaining and justifying of their earthly goals by twisting the symbolic meaning of these values to their own convenience. Constitutionalism is part of the process of the devaluation of values which we call nihilism. It is important to assert that constitutional values are tools to justify political aims and institutions. Without the religious validity in the sound words of a Prophet, values are sold to rational speculation. This use of values is clearly observable today in the voice of politicians who endlessly claim justice, peace, order, etc. as being identified with their own political party’s programme.
Banking demanded the taming of religion and the elimination of its normative power. The capitalist logic required undifferentiated range and an expanding number of customers and markets. Thus to be a tax-payer became a stronger identity than religious affiliation. The result is the need to assimilate religious differences. The tool for assimilation to the role of tax-payer is the principle of toleration. Toleration moved gradually from philosophical enquiry to the realm of politics and turned into legislation in the form of constitutions. Away from the romance, what constitutions meant was the elimination of religious identity in favour of the citizen, defined unscrupulously as a tax-payer. We remember what Thomas Paine had to say:
“Whatever the constitution may be in other respects, it has undoubtedly been the most productive machine of taxation that was ever invented.”164
Constitutionalism is too recent a phenomenon to be given the universal validity that it claims. The great surge of constitutionalism did not occur until the second half of the nineteenth century. This movement originated in the unifying movements in Italy and Germany which were, in their turn responsible for the republican constitution promulgated in France after the war of 1870.165 In Islam, Sultan Abdulhamid II, rahimahu’llah, under legal imperative had proclaimed in 1876 the first Ottoman Constitution only to abrogate it the moment he had a chance two years later. It was not until 1908 that the Young Turks could depose Khalif Sultan Abdulhamid and proclaim Turkey a constitutional monarchy. It is important to remember that the whole movement which broke Southern Europe from the Dar al-Islam had adopted political constitutionalism as the principle and means of their ‘emancipation’. This is relevant to understanding the incongruence of the idea of Islamic constitutionalism.
komentar