Book review: 'In the Line of fire' a Memoir by Parvez Musharraf

Vainglorious Musharraf puts America first in his quest for power

It is unprecedented for a sitting head of state to divulge their memoirs and considering Musharraf has monopolized Pakistan's highest seat by weakening all possible opposition the motivation for writing his memoirs before retirement raises a number of questions. Heads of state usually hold off publishing memoirs until they have left office behind and are unfettered by diplomatic niceties. As any Pakistani and now every US senator will tell you, his life in the helm since his coup in 1999 has been anything but eventful. This book is his meek, but ultimately feeble, justification for his actions and existence in power.



His choice of title for his book, "In the Line of Fire," demonstrates the audience he is targeting. In American popular media the phrase is tied with the Clint Eastwood Hollywood film about a US secret service agent taking a bullet in the chest to save the President. The American public responded in kind, his book became a best seller. However, in the Urdu translation, the one sold in Pakistan had the title changed to "Sab say pehlay Pakistan" ("Pakistan First"). The change of title sums up his dilemma, how do you serve American foreign policy yet sound like you are doing it in the interests of your people?

Musharraf outlines a complete history prior to his coup of a Pakistan in the grip of insincere and incompetent rulers, who never put Pakistan first but only had their own interests or their family’s interests in mind. He sums up the period from 1985 – 1998 as the dreadful decade; his description lays the justification for when he decided to carry out his coup. He has littered the book with one-liners expressing himself as a great leader and savior of Pakistan. In doing so the book descends to laughable limits with numerous inaccuracies, such as the Kargil conflict.

The Kargil debacle of 1999 is blamed completely upon Nawaz Sharif. In fact Musharraf was closely involved in turning a quick Pakistan victory into an ignominious defeat. The push into the Kargil, which is a strategic location high in the mountains on the Indian side of the LOC, represented a key element of the Kashmir struggle which was being led by a number of liberation forces alongside the Pakistani army. This venture sent shock waves in India resulting in fighter jets being scampered and a backlash against the Indian premier Vajpayee by his BJP supporters. Fearing defeat at the next elections the US intervened straight away to prevent further losses. President Clinton ordered Pakistan to pull their troops back and it was General Musharraf, leader of the forces, who executed the act. Hence pulling Pakistani troops back from the strategic heights of Kargil was a deliberate US attempt and Musharraf the leader of the armed forces who executed it. Consequently all the blame was levelled at Nawaz Sharif and Kargil was used as an emotional pretext to remove him from power. In reality America had set up the stage for Musharraf’s coup.

Musharraf attempts to justify his coup as something he never wished for but that was forced upon him due to the insincere leadership of Nawaz Sharif. He mentions that many people warned Sharif that he was planning a coup and all this culminated in the infamous incident where his plane was refused permission to land in Karachi, during this time a new General of the Army was announced to the People of Pakistan. He explains that his army due to the embarrassment of Kargil refused to carry out orders and undertook to remove Nawaz Sharif from power, ensuring his plane landed safely. The coup, he alleges, was carried out in three hours with him unaware of such actions until he was handed the reigns of power.

By contrast, numerous reports clearly prove such a narrative untrue. Army insiders have explained plans were in place for Musharraf to take over and recently General Hamid Gul, former head of the Pakistani secret service, exposed the US support for a Musharraf takeover. The Kargil affair simply laid the ground for the Musharraf coup.

The chapter on the War on Terror contains a number of illuminating points. Indeed, Pakistan's unstinting support for America's War on Terror is perhaps the lasting legacy of the Musharraf era. Musharraf outlines the support Pakistan gave to the emergence of the Taliban as they were the lesser of two evils, Musharraf continually describes the Taliban as 'them' rather then 'us' considering the close ties between the Taliban and Islamabad. He proudly boasts of the fact that his army has captured over 672 'terrorists' and handed over half of them to the US. Again there are a number of inconsistencies with his narrative on the War on Terror. It was Musharraf who gave the US unstinting support before even being ordered and he needed no convincing.

The most glaring contradiction in the book is the fact that Musharraf chastises Nawaz Sharif's regime for following American diktat over the Kargil affair, yet in siding with America's attack on Afghanistan after the US administration threatened to "bomb Pakistan into the Stone Age" he does exactly the same thing. Moreover, the strategic and geopolitical position of Pakistan at present due to his policies has never been so perilous. His slavish support of the US has resulted in the loss of billions to the economy through the war in Afghanistan; the unprecedented deployment of Pakistani soldiers to fight fellow Muslims in the tribal areas, the strengthening of Indian influence in Afghanistan and the loss of autonomy with the establishment of US forces and FBI bases within Pakistan territory. His actions in regards to his support to the war on terror do nothing to counteract the common term of 'Busharraf' to describe the two leaders’ common axis. He is certainly not following a Pakistan first policy. His actions are now clear for all to see, hence many sections of the book are presented as his rationale for doing America’s bidding but none of these stand up when scrutinized against the events.

This book needs to be understood within the context it was written. Musharraf has very little support at home and abroad and many people are questioning Pakistan in terms of their commitment to global terror. For this reason many facts and half facts are spiced up. His memoirs are effectively a poor public relations exercise to cover up monumental disasters in blindly following America in the hope that a hostile public will forgive and forget. Even to the end, he continues to live in a fantasy world believing that he will attain his place in history. Perhaps he will but for the very wrong reasons. After reading the book one is left to ask the question, is Musharraf a sincere puppet of America with no dignity of his own or is he a fantasist, fooling himself into believing he really is doing his actions for Pakistan’s supreme interests. This would be too kind to him – history will see him as another traitor to the people of Pakistan and their legitimate struggles. It is time we had leaders in the Muslim world that put Muslims first – not the interests of outside powers.

The Great Wall China

The Chinese were already familiar with the techniques of wall-building by the time of the Spring and Autumn Period, which began around the 7th century BC. During the Warring States Period from the 5th century BC to 221 BC, the states of Qi, Yan and Zhao all constructed extensive fortifications to defend their own borders. Built to withstand the attack of small arms such as swords and spears, these walls were made mostly by stamping earth and gravel between board frames. Qin Shi Huang conquered all opposing states and unified China in 221 BC, establishing the Qin Dynasty. Intending to impose centralized rule and prevent the resurgence of feudal lords, he ordered the destruction of the wall sections that divided his empire along the former state borders. To protect the empire against intrusions by the Xiongnu people from the north, he ordered the building of a new wall to connect the remaining fortifications along the empire's new northern frontier. Transporting the large quantity of materials required for construction was difficult, so builders always tried to use local resources. Stones from the mountains were used over mountain ranges, while rammed earth was used for construction in the plains. There are no surviving historical records indicating the exact length and course of the Qin Dynasty walls. Most of the ancient walls have eroded away over the centuries, and very few sections remain today. Later, the Han, Sui, Northern and Jin dynasties all repaired, rebuilt, or expanded sections of the Great Wall at great cost to defend themselves against northern invaders.

The Great Wall concept was revived again during the Ming Dynasty following the Ming army's defeat by the Oirats in the Battle of Tumu in 1449. The Ming had failed to gain a clear upper-hand over the Manchurian and Mongolian tribes after successive battles, and the long-drawn conflict was taking a toll on the empire. The Ming adopted a new strategy to keep the nomadic tribes out by constructing walls along the northern border of China. Acknowledging the Mongol control established in the Ordos Desert, the wall followed the desert's southern edge instead of incorporating the bend of the Huang He.
Photograph of the Great Wall in 1907
Photograph of the Great Wall in 1907

Unlike the earlier Qin fortifications, the Ming construction was stronger and more elaborate due to the use of bricks and stone instead of rammed earth. As Mongol raids continued periodically over the years, the Ming devoted considerable resources to repair and reinforce the walls. Sections near the Ming capital of Beijing were especially strong.

Image:The Great wall - by Bernard Goldbach.jpg

Understanding the subject of Al Qada wal Qadar

The following is a transcript of a discussion presented on this subject and therefore may not be gramatically acurate.

The subject of al Qada wal Qadar is a massive subject that engaged Muslims in a massive debate throughout the centuries, for this reason it is impossible to cover all aspects of this discussion in today’s presentation.
The subject of al Qada wal Qadar is an important one, it is from the rational elements of the Aqeeda. It is a subject that many of the Ummah are confused upon to this day. It is a concept that is related to the relationship of this life with the hereafter, if we misunderstood this concept there would be a major vagueness in the relationship between this life and the afterlife in terms of accountability. We may even conclude as those in the past that there is no relationship and therefore can act as we please. Therefore it is important to understand the subject in depth including its origins in history, the different views regarding it and the correct position.

History of the subject of al Qada wal Qadar

The subject of al Qada wal Qadar was never explicitly discussed as a subject by the Prophet (saw) or any of the Sahaba. What they discussed were other issues related to the textual element of the Aqeeda such as al-Qadar referring to the knowledge of Allah (swt) or al-Qada in its linguistic meaning that can mean many things.

This discussion came about amongst the Muslims after the translation of the Greek philosophies into the Arabic language. It was the Greek philosophers who engaged in inquiry and controversy over this issue. They had put forward questions such as: Does man have free will or is he forced to carry out his actions?

There were two main schools of thought regarding the issue amongst the Greeks, the Stoics and the Epicureans.

The Epicureans believed that the will is free in choice and that man does all of his actions according to his will and without compulsion.

The Stoics on the other hand believed that the will compelled to take the path it takes and that it is incapable of departing from it. Man, they said, does nothing in accordance with his will; rather he is compelled to do whatever he does; to do or not to do is not within his control.

With the advent of Islam and the infiltration of the philosophical thoughts Muslims came into contact with these ideas they attempted to answer the same questions from the viewpoint of Islam. One of the major issues that the Muslims began to discuss was the attribute of justice on the with regard to Allah. Islam is based on the concept that Allah is just, and according to this justice we have reward and punishment. Accordingly, the Muslim thinkers attempted to reconcile this premise with the philosophical questions posed by the Greeks.

The most prominent of these was the discussion by the Mu’tazilah; it was the prototype in this matter; the discussion of the other scholastics was a response to repudiate the views of the Mu’tazilah. Thus the Mu’tazilah are considered the pioneers in discussing the issue of al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar, and even in all the topics of scholasticism that the Mutakallimeen engaged in. The head of the Mu’tazilah was Wasil Ibn Ataa’ who had been removed from the circle of the famous scholar Al-Hasan Al-Basri for his views.

The Mu’tazilah responded by first establishing the central role of Allah's justice in order to prevent anyone accusing Allah of oppression. They concluded that Allah's justice has no meaning unless man has free will. Thus, they said man created his actions and he if free to do what he likes because if he does something from his own will, by choice without coercion, then his reward and punishment are both rational and just. They maintained that if Allah creates human beings and also forces them into a certain path, such as making people sinners or believers, then to punish the sinners for being sinful and rewarding the obedient believers for believing would be unjust.

In their methodology they followed the Greek way of thinking. Muslims assumed, like Greek philosophers, that Allah follows laws and codes like man does. They made analogy between Allah (swt) and man. Commenting on the will, they said that the person who wants good is good in himself, and the person who wants bad is both bad and evil. Likewise, he who orders justice is just, and he who orders oppression is an oppressor. Accordingly, they maintained if we assume the will of Allah embraces every aspect of life, both good and bad, Allah would then be described as good and bad, just and oppressor; which is clearly impossible.

They were clearly influenced by Greek logic in their argument. They also said that if Allah wants the disbeliever to be a disbeliever (Kafir) and the sinner to be sinful then He should not warn and admonish them from sin and disbelief. How could it be possible that Allah wanted Abu Lahab to be a disbeliever and yet commanded him to believe and warned him from disbelief. If any man had done such a thing he would be called a fool and ignorant. Allah who never be accused of such things. If the disbelief of the disbeliever and the sin of the sinner were wanted by Allah then they should not be punished, because their actions were obedient to the will of Allah. The Mu'tazilah repeated such arguments, with proof derived from their mind.

The Mu’tazilah supported their opinions based on logic with verses from the Glorious Quran, such as, -in translation:

“But Allah never wishes injustice to His Servants.” (Ghafir:31).

“Say: "With Allah is the argument that reaches home: if it had been His Will, He could indeed have guided you all." (Al-an’aam:149)

“Allah intends every facility for you; He does not want to put you to difficulties.” (Al-Baqarah:185)

They concluded from this the opinion that man has the freedom of will to do an act or refrain from doing it; thus if he does, it is according to his will and if he refrains from doing, it is also according to his will. As regard the issue of the creation of acts, the Mu’tazilah said that the acts of people are created by them and they are of their own doing not of Allah’s; it is in their power to do these acts or refrain from them without any intervention of the power of Allah. The proof of this is the difference which man feels between the voluntary and the involuntary movement, such as the movement of a person who voluntarily moves his hand and the movement of a trembling person, and the difference between the movement of someone going up a lighthouse and another falling from it; thus the voluntary movement is in the power of man; it is he who creates it; but he has no role in the involuntary movement; also, if man was not the creator of his acts, the takliif (obligation to comply with Shari’a) would be invalid, since if he was not capable of doing or refraining from doing, it would not be rational to ask him to do or to refrain from doing, and this would not have been the subject of punishment and reward.

They used logic to prove their arguments, and then tried to quote many naqli (textual) proofs to support their argument such as:

“Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls).”(Ar-Ra’d:11)

“That Day will every soul be requited for what it earned.”(Ghaafir:17)

In following the methodology of the Greeks they began to discuss the issue and the offshoots of the issue, one of the offshoots of the creation of actions which they discussed was the issue of results.

After the Mu’tazilah had determined that the acts of man are created by him, a question arose from this: What about the acts that result from his action? Is created by him as well? Or is it created by Allah, for example the taste that a thing comes to have as a result of the action of man, the cutting that occurs from a knife, pleasure, health, lust, heat, coldness, humidness, hardness, cowardice, courage, hunger, satisfaction, etc.. They said that all these are part of the action of man because it is man who causes them when he performs his acts. Thus they are resultant from his act and consequently they are created by him.
To summarise their view, they believed that due to Allah’s Justice which has been mentioned in the text it is impossible that Allah forced man to act and then punish or reward him as this would be unjust. Therefore people have free will in all of their actions and it is they who creates their actions and the attributes that occur in things as a result of their action.

Al Jabriyah

In the atmosphere created by the Mu’tazilah a new group emerged, known by the name AI Jabriyah; the most famous of whom was known as Al Jahm ibn Safwan. They held the opinion that man was compelled to carry out actions, man had no free will and no power to initiate his actions. In other words, man was like a feather in the wind or a log floating on the sea.

They argued, if man creates his own actions then Allah’s power does not extend to cover everything, i.e., man is a partner with Allah in creating things in this world. if it is held that Allah's power creates things, then, by definition, man has nothing to do with creating the actions; neither in part or in full.

AI-Jabriyah maintained that Allah is the creator of man's deeds and according to Allah's will the individual carries out the action. AI-Jabriyah believed that man was nothing more than a receiver compelled by Allah, like any object, to carry out actions without any will or influence. They brought verses. of Quran to support their opinions, such as: "You do not guide whom you like, rather Allah guides whom He likes." [al-Qasas] “Allah has created you and your handiwork.” [as-Saffat:96] “Allah is the creator of everything.” [as-Zumur]

As for man's organic needs and instincts, and the effects and attributes of the actions, such as: taste, joy, hunger, courage, the knives ability to cut, or the fires ability to burn, they said all these thing are from Allah.

Ahl-us-Sunnah

The people of Sunnah (ahl-us-Sunnah) responded to the ideas of AI-Mu’tazilah and AI-Jabriyah. They came out with a compromise solution as they didn’t except the extremes of the other views so they attempted to bring together the views of the Mu’tazilah and Jabriyah in a synthesis. They said that their third opinion which has come out from the two opinions is 'the pure milk that is sweet to drink that comes out of the excrement and blood'. The most famous amongst them were Abul Hassan al Asharee and his student al-Maturdi.

They said all man's actions occur by the will of Allah. If Allah wants something He merely says "Be and it is.' They contented that Allah has bestowed on every creature certain qualities, like good and bad, and these qualities contain reward and punishment. Man's deeds, therefore, are the result of destiny. As for the sinful and disbelievers, they argued that Allah wants the sinners to be sinful and the disbelievers to be disbelievers, not by obligation but by their choice. Allah knew that they, by choice, would become sinners and disbelievers.

They were different to the Jabriyah in that they believed that man has free will but Allah creates mans actions, in order to explain this they came out with the concept of Kasb Iktiari. This concept is abstract and contradicts the reality and thus is difficult to understand.

Basically it means that man has free will but Allah knows mans will do and therefore creates mans actions in reality. So you have the free will to turn right or left, if you decide to turn left Allah knows this and makes you turn left. You have the free will to attempt to hit someone, if you decide to hit him, it is Allah that creates the action.

They used the same evidences as the Jabriyah in proving that Allah creates the actions of man. Some of the textual evidences they used for proving the concept of Kasb Iktiari are:

“Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it)” (Al-Kahf:29) and His (swt) saying, “It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns.”(Al-Baqarah:286)

In reality their conclusion is the same as the Jabriyah’s as they believe that Allah knows what you are going to do before you do it and forces you to act to undertake what he knows your going to do, therefore he forces you to act even if you have free will.

Errors in the way the approached the subject

The Mu’tazilah took the issue of ‘al-Qada wal Qadar’ or ‘compulsion and free choice’ from the Greek philosophy under they discussed it using the logical method of the Greeks by viewing it from the perspective of their own view of the Justice of Allah. This led to the emergence of the Jabriyah and Ahl-us-Sunnah to refute the views of the Mu’tazilah, which they did according to the same precepts and on the same basis.

All of them discussed the issue from the perspective of the attributes of Allah not from the perspective of the actual subject of free will and choice. They all made the fundamental error of linking the texts to do with the attributes of Allah such as Iradatullah (The will of Allah), Ilmullah (The knowledge of Allah) and al Lawh al Mahfouz (The Protected Decree) which is an expression of the knowledge of Allah. So they approached the issue from a textual perspective although it is obviously a rational discussion.

By linking the texts related to the attributes of Allah one would definitely become confused on the subject as if you looked at the texts from this perspective they would look contradictory.

An example are the following texts:

In Surat Al-Tawba, He (swt) says in translation:

"Say: Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us. He is our Protector and in Allah, let the Believers place their trust." [9:51]

"If some good befalls them, they say: This is from Allah. But if evil, they say: This is from you (O Prophet). Say: All things are from Allah. But what has come to these people, that they fail to understand a single fact?" [4:78]

“Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls).”(Ar-Ra’d:11)

Some people in history even said that discussing Al-Qadaa’ wal Qadar was absolutely impermissible because the Prophet prohibited this, and they would quote the hadith that at-Tabarani recorded which is Hasan in Sanad (narration): “If the qadar was mentioned abstain from discussion”.

In fact it is a common error of many that they link the term Qadar when mentioned in the text to the subject of al-Qada wal Qadar which is completely unrelated.

Al-Qadar as a word is Mushtarak i.e. it can have more than one meaning, as an example it can mean estimated (taqdeer), Knowledge ('ilm), arrangement (tadbeer), the time (al-waqt), the preparation (tahi'yah) and making an attribute in the thing. Some of the different linguistic meanings of the term have been used in different text in the Quran and the Ahadith.

In many occasions the word Qadar or its derivatives have been mentioned in the text with the meaning of the Ilmullah (Knowledge of Allah).

From Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "Adam argued with Mousa. Mousa said : Are you Adam, the one who brought your offspring out of Jannah? Adam said: Are you Mousa, the one whom Allah has bestowed upon you His messages and speech? Then you blame a mater which has been decreed for me (qudera ala'y) before I was born. Thus Adam convinced him". It means that it was decreed to me by the knowledge of Allah.

Tawoos said, I heard Abdullah ibn Omar say, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "Everything is with qadar, even impotence and cleverness, or the cleverness and impotence". This means that everything is according to the knowledge ('ilm) of Allah, which means that Allah has written that in the Protected Tablet.

The word qadar has been mentioned in the hadith of Jibreel in some narrations. He said: ‘Believe in al-qadar whether good or bad’
The Messenger of Allah (saw) also said, " … If anything befell you don't say: Had I did (this), it would have been such and such, but rather say: Allah estimated (qaddara) and He did what He willed." This means that Allah recorded (Kataba) in the Protected Tablets (al-lawh al mahfoodh), i.e. He knew. All of these matters are related to the attributes of Allah, and that He knows the things before they happen, and they happen (occur) with qadar from him, i.e. with His knowledge. All of this has nothing
to do with the subject of al-qada wal qadar.

The term Qadar when used in the various texts is not used to mean what the Mutakilmeen (scholastics) differed over in reference to al-Qada wal Qadar.

The term Qada is also Mushtarak and has many meanings that have come in the text such as making a thing with precision, completing a matter, ordered, executed, etc. Again the use of the word al-Qada mentioned in the Ayat or Ahadith are not related to the discussion of al-Qada wal Qadar that the Mutakalimeen discussed.

The correct view

The basis of the discussion in al-Qada wa al-Qadar is not the action of man in terms of whether he created the action or Allah created it. Neither is it the will of Allah (SWT) in the sense that His will is conditional on the action of man so it must exist by this will. Neither is it the Knowledge of Allah in terms of Him knowing that man will do such and such action and that His Knowledge encompass that, nor that this action of man is written in the al-Lawh al-Mahfuz so he must act according to what has been written.

The basis of the discussion is definitely none of these things, because they have no relationship to the subject from the viewpoint of reward and punishment. The topic of discussion on whose basis the question of al-Qada wa al-Qadar is built is the issue of reward and punishment for an action i.e.: Is man obliged to perform an action, good or evil, or does he have a choice? And, does man have the choice to perform his action, or does he have no choice?

When we say the basis is reward and punishment, we mean this from the perspective of the origin of accountability i.e. free will. This is because without free will reward and punishment would be meaningless.

The person who scrutinises the actions of people sees that we live within two spheres: 1) one which we dominate, seen as the sphere that is present within the region of our conduct, and within which our actions happen absolutely by our choice; 2) the other sphere dominates us, we exist within its domain, and the that which occurs upon us within it happen without our choice, whether they originate from us or fall upon us.

The actions that fall within the sphere that dominates us, we have no choice in them or in their existence. They can be divided into two kinds: The first are those required by the law of the universe. The second are those actions which are not directly necessitated by the laws of the universe. We are not accounted for anything that occurs within this sphere and it is classified as fate (Qada) from Allah (swt).

The laws of the Universe being from Allah is fairly simple to grasp. However understanding how those things that fall upon us which are not necessitated by the universal law are Qada from Allah requires more thought.

The easiest examples for this are the accidental happenings such as the contracting of an illness, train accidents or tripping and spraining your ankle. However this area of the sphere which dominates us is not limited to accidents it also includes things we intend such as arriving at a destination, passing an exam or establishing the Khilafah. The key issue to grasp is that we only control our actions i.e. our limbs and not anything beyond this. When it comes to the examples that I mentioned such as reaching a destination, passing an exam or establishing the Khilafah we only control our actions and therefore make an attempt to achieve a goal, the result is definitively not in our control and involves complex interrelationships between people and matter, it includes many factors that are not in the control of people. When embarking upon a journey we may make an attempt to reach a destination but fail due to many factors such as the car breaking down or an accident on the motorway – so we do not definitively control whether we will arrive at our destination.

We attempt to re-establish the Khilafah but where and when we establish it is not in our control. Even though there were bloodless coup attempts in the past, the da’wa carriers not control the outcome.

Complex situations must be studied carefully to ascertain which aspects are actually Qada and which aspects are in peoples control, it is dangerous to generalise and label things as Qada without making this distinction. Take the example of marriage, often people label this as Qada, upon further scrutiny we would ascertain that there are elements which are in man’s control and elements outside of his control. Whether the man and the women initially meet or not is not in their control, once they have met the decision they make to agree to the marriage is their decision and is not forced upon them by Allah (swt). Even if they decide to marry whether they are able to make it to the actual wedding is not within their control.

If we do not control something then by definition it falls into the second sphere and therefore is from Allah (swt).

If something occurs upon us which we don’t control such as winning a prize or tripping and breaking a leg we can conclude that this is from Allah (swt) but is beyond the role of our minds to understand how Allah (swt) ensured that this would happen to us. It is beyond our perception to discuss how Allah does things and ensures that certain things will occur upon us without our control.

As for the sphere that man dominates, it is the sphere in which he proceeds willingly according to the system he chooses, whether it is the divine law (shar'iyah) or any other. In this sphere, actions carried out by man or befalling him occur by his will. For example, he walks, eats, drinks and travels anytime he likes, likewise he refrains from doing any of these things when he likes; he also burns with fire and cuts with a knife when he chooses; and he satisfies the instincts of procreation and ownership and the hunger of the belly as he likes. All this he performs or abstains from willingly. Therefore, man is accounted for those deeds which occur within this sphere. Thus, he is rewarded for the action which is rewardable, and he is punished for it if it is punishable. These actions have nothing to do with al-Qada or vice versa. Because man is the one who undertook them with his own will and choice. Therefore, actions of choice do not come under the subject of al-Qada.

The issue of Qadar is to do with the attributes of things that Allah (swt) placed within the universe, man and life. In reality it is a subset of the discussion of Qada as it is related to the universal laws in the sphere which Allah dominates, however due to the controversy that existed over it during the centuries it was discussed as a topic on its own. It is clear from the observation of reality that all attributes of the universe, man and life are from Allah (swt) whether this is the weight of a stone, the sexual inclination in man or sharpness of a knife.

Although we are subject to al-Qada wal Qadar this does not mean that we become fatalistic and submit ourselves to whatever is going to happen to us as we have no knowledge of that. There is a difference between Aqeeda and Hukm Shari and in issues of action we must refer to the Shariah rules as Allah (swt) has ordered us regardless of whether we control the outcome or not.

The Embryo Bill controversy highlights deficits in democracy

The government proposal to update the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, and expand the scope of embryo research to allow scientists to develop human-animal chimeric or hybrid embryos has received a vociferous response from the Catholic Church. In his Easter sermon, Cardinal O'Brien described the legislation as a "monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life," adding that it would allow experiments of "Frankenstein proportion."

The legislation has the support of the scientific community who wish to develop stem cell lines from the hybrid embryos for research purposes as a means to develop new medical treatments for numerous degenerative diseases such Parkinson's disease and heart failure. Currently, due to a shortage of donor female eggs with which to generate early embryos, research is being hampered as a consequence of a shortage of research material. The procedure will involve combining a human nucleus with an denucleated female animal egg cell using the same cloning technology that allowed the generation of Dolly the sheep.



As many MP's, including transport minister, Ruth Kelly, are devout Catholics, the original directive of the Labour Party whip has been met by strong opposition from front and back benchers forcing Gordon Brown to compromise and allow a free vote. Health Secretary Alan Johnson said the government would seek an "accommodation" with Labour MPs allowing them to vote according to their conscience rather than on party lines.



As with many ethical issues, the debate surrounding the Embryo Bill illustrates the uneasy relationship between the Church and the State in secular democratic politics. While it might be expected that MP's would vote in accordance with the party line, in provocative issues where a free vote is allowed should an MP not be expected to vote in accordance with the wishes of his/her constituents rather than his/her personal beliefs? Conversely, there are many examples where the party whip forces MP's to vote against their conscience and the wishes of their constituents such as occurred in the vote sanctioning the disasterous invasion of Iraq!



Islam was revealed to the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) as guidance for mankind and provided a detailed system of life, the Sharia, to prevent human beings from oppressing each other and taking decisions on matters over which they have little or no knowledge . Under the Khilafah system, the decision to allow or prohibit new medical technologies or to go to war is determined by the Sharia rules and not the whims or beliefs of people, corporate interests, parties or lobby groups, as long as the Muslim Ummah ensure that its leadership adheres to and implements the Sharia completely.
----Anresta----

Syari'at dan Perundang-undangan

Kitab Nizhâm al-’Uqûbât karya Dr. Abdurrahman al-Maliki termasuk kitab non-mutabannat yang dikeluarkan oleh Hizbut Tahrir dan tidak diajarkan di dalam halaqah-halaqah intensif. Namun, para syabab Hizb dianjurkan membaca dan memahami kitab ini. Anjuran ini bisa dimengerti karena kitab tersebut merupakan salah satu seri kitab yang menjelaskan bagian terpenting dari sistem peradilan Islam, yakni sistem sistem persanksian.


Sistem Peradilan Islam

Sistem peradilan Islam dibagi menjadi tiga subsistem penting:

1. Struktur dan birokrasi peradilan dalam Islam; meliputi macam-macam qâdhi, tugas dan kewenangan, pengangkatan, dan mekanisme birokrasi lainnya).
2. Ketentuan-ketentuan yang berhubungan dengan pembuktian (ahkâm al-bayyinah); mencakup pembahasan mengenai materi yang absah dan yang tidak absah dijadikan sebagai bukti hukum, syarat-syarat serta mekanisme pembuktian untuk kasus-kasus pidana dan perdata, dan lain-lain.
3. Sistem persanksian, yakni sistem yang menjelaskan macam-macam sanksi yang akan dijatuhkan kepada para pelanggar hukum, beserta syarat-syarat dan ketentuan-ketentuan lainnya.

Untuk itu, siapa saja yang ingin mendapatkan pemahaman utuh mengenai sistem peradilan Islam, ia harus mendalami: sistem persanksian; sistem pembuktian; serta struktur dan birokrasi peradilan Islam.

Hizbut Tahrir telah menjelaskan tiga hal tersebut di dalam tiga kitab terpisah. Untuk sistem pembuktian, Hizbut Tahrir mengeluarkan kitab non-mutabannat berjudul Ahkâm al-Bayyinah, karya ‘Allamah Ahmad Daur. Untuk sistem persanksian, Hizbut Tahrir juga mengeluarkan kitab non-mutabannat berjudul Nizhâm al-’Uqûbât karya Dr. ‘Abdurrahman al-Maliki. Adapun sistem birokrasi dan struktur (perangkat) peradilan telah dibahas di dalam kitab Nizhâm al-Hukmi fî al-Islâm karya ‘Allamah Abdul Qadim Zallum, dalam bab al-Qadhâ’.


Kelebihan Buku

Pada dasarnya, sistem peradilan Islam beserta bagian-bagiannya sudah disitir dalam kitab-kitab fikih klasik. Hanya saja, pembahasannya masih kurang sistematis, campur aduk, tercecer dalam sub-sub pembahasan yang berbeda-beda, dan tidak membangun sebuah sistem yang hirarkis. Di dalam kitab fikih klasik, pembahasan mengenai sanksi dan pembuktian, kadang-kadang dijadikan satu dalam kitab Al-Hukm, ‘Aqdliyyah, Syahadah, dan Da’awiy wa al-Bayyinah. Belum ada pemilahan, mana kitab yang khusus membahas sanksi; mana yang membahas pembuktian; dan mana yang membahas struktur peradilan. Nah, pengarang buku ini telah memisahkan pembahasan sanksi dari pembahasan lainnya, kemudian menyusunnya menjadi sebuah pembahasan yang sistemik, utuh, dan fokus.

Buku ini juga meletakkan beberapa panduan penting untuk menuntun para qâdhi (hakim) dalam menetapkan sanksi yang tepat untuk kasus-kasus ta‘zîr; yakni kasus-kasus yang jenis dan kadar sanksinya belum ditetapkan secara spesifik oleh hukum syariah. Ini ditujukan agar esensi dan fungsi utama peradilan bisa ditegakkan, yakni menjamin keamanan dan keadilan di tengah-tengah masyarakat serta menjaga eksistensi Daulah Islamiyah. Contohnya, qâdhi harus menjatuhkan sanksi berat terhadap individu, kelompok, maupun organisasi yang mendirikan partai yang berasaskan nasionalisme, sekularisme, maupun paham-paham lain yang bertentangan dengan Islam; atau yang didirikan untuk memecah-belah kaum Muslim dan menghancurkan eksistensi Khilafah Islamiyah; dan lain sebagainya. Dengan panduan tersebut, seorang qâdhi diharapkan mampu menegakkan peradilan yang kuat di tengah-tengah masyarakat. Dengan itu, kaum yang lemah berani meminta haknya, kaum yang kuat tercegah untuk melakukan kezaliman atas kaum yang lemah, dan musuh-musuh Negara Khilafah gentar menghadapi sistem hukum dan peradilan yang begitu kuat.

Kelebihan lain yang bisa kita temukan dalam buku ini adalah adanya penjelasan filosofis dan mendasar tentang persanksian di dalam Islam serta kasus-kasus yang wajib dikenai sanksi dan mana yang tidak. Menurut buku ini, secara filosofis sanksi berfungsi sebagai zawâjir dan jawâbir. Zawâjir adalah kedudukan sanksi sebagai pencegah tindak kejahatan. Jawâbir adalah fungsi sanksi sebagai penebus dosa bagi pelakunya kelak pada Hari Kiamat. Adapun kasus yang wajib dikenai sanksi adalah semua tindakan kejahatan, yakni melaksanakan perbuatan yang secara tegas dilarang oleh syariah dan meninggalkan perbuatan yang secara tegas diperintahkan oleh syariah. Perbuatan lain, selain perbuatan semacam ini, tidak akan dijatuhi sanksi.


Sistem Persanksian dalam Islam

Sanksi dibagi menjadi empat: (1) hudûd; (2) jinâyât; (3) ta‘zîr; dan (4) mukhâlafât. Kadang-kadang, istilah hudûd, jinâyât, ta‘zîr dan mukhâlafât juga dikonotasikan untuk tindak pelanggarannya sendiri. Dengan demikian, keempat istilah tersebut masing-masing bisa diartikan dalam konteks sanksinya maupun tindak pelanggarannya. Untuk itu, kasus perzinaan dan sanksi zina bisa disebut dengan hudûd. Begitu pula untuk istilah lainnya.


1. Hudûd

Hudûd adalah sanksi atas kemaksiatan yang macam kasus dan sanksinya telah ditetapkan oleh syariah. Dalam kasus hudûd tidak diterima adanya pengampunan atau abolisi. Sebab, hudûd adalah hak Allah Swt. Jika kasus hudûd telah disampaikan di majelis pengadilan, kasus itu tidak bisa dibatalkan karena adanya pengampunan atau kompromi.

Hudûd dibagi menjadi enam: (1) zina dan liwâth (homoseksual dan lesbian); (2) al-qadzaf (menuduh zina orang lain); (3) minum khamr; (4) pencurian; (5) murtad; (6) hirâbah atau bughât.

Pelaku zina yang berstatus perjaka atau perawan (ghayru muhshan) dikenai hukuman cambuk sebanyak 100 kali. Pelaku zina yang berstatus suami atau istri, janda atau duda, dijatuhi sanksi rajam. Sanksi homoseksual dan lesbian adalah hukuman mati. Sanksi bagi pelaku qadzaf adalah cambuk 80 kali. Peminum khamr dijatuhi sanksi cambuk sebanyak 40 kali dan boleh dilebihkan dari jumlah itu. Tindak pencurian dikenai sanksi potong tangan jika telah memenuhi ‘syarat-syarat pencurian’ yang wajib dikenai potong tangan. Adapun jika pencurian itu belum memenuhi syarat, pencuri tidak boleh dikenai sanksi potong tangan. Misalnya, orang yang mencuri karena kelaparan, mencuri barang-barang milik umum, belum sampai nishâb (1/4 dinar), dan lain sebagainya tidak boleh dikenai hukuman potong tangan.

Pelaku murtad dikenai hukuman mati jika tidak mau bertobat dan kembali ke pangkuan Islam dalam tenggat waktu tertentu. Hanya saja, syariah tidak membatasi tenggat waktu yang diberikan kepada si murtad untuk kembali kepada Islam.

Pelaku tindak hirâbah (pembegalan) diberi sanksi berdasarkan tindak kejahatan yang ia lakukan. Jika mereka hanya mengambil harta saja, hukumannya adalah dipotong tangan kanan dan kaki kiri. Jika mereka hanya menebar teror dan ketakutan saja, dikenai hukuman pengasingan (deportasi ke tempat yang jauh). Jika mereka melakukan pembunuhan saja, sanksinya hukuman mati. Jika mereka melakukan pembunuhan dan perampokan harta, hukumannya dibunuh dan disalib.

Pelaku bughât (memberontak) diperangi sampai mereka kembali ke pangkuan Islam atau ke pangkuan Khilafah yang sah. Hanya saja, perang melawan pelaku bughât berbeda dengan perang melawan orang kafir. Perang melawan pelaku bughât hanyalah perang yang bersifat edukatif, bukan jihad fi sabilillah. Oleh karena itu, pelaku bughât tidak boleh diserang dengan senjata pemusnah massal atau serbuan nuklir dan roket; kecuali jika mereka menggunakan arsenal seperti ini. Jika mereka melarikan diri dari perang, mereka tidak boleh dikejar dan ditumpas sampai habis. Harta mereka tidak boleh dijadikan sebagai ghanîmah.


2. Jinâyât

Jinâyât adalah penyerangan terhadap manusia. Jinâyât dibagi dua: (1) penyerangan terhadap jiwa (pembunuhan); (2) penyerangan terhadap organ tubuh.

Kasus jinâyât terhadap jiwa (pembunuhan), sanksinya ada tiga macam: qishash, diyat, atau kafarah. Pembunuhan sendiri diklasifikasi menjadi empat jenis; (1) pembunuhan sengaja; (2) mirip disengaja; (3) tidak sengaja; (4) karena ketidaksengajaan.

Pada kasus pembunuhan sengaja, pihak wali korban boleh memilih antara qishash atau memaafkan dengan mengambil diyat, atau menyedekahkan diyatnya. Jika pelaku pembunuhan mendapatkan pemaafan, ia wajib membayar diyat sebanyak 100 ekor onta dan 40 ekor di antaranya telah bunting.

Sanksi pembunuhan mirip sengaja (syibh al-’amad) adalah diyat 100 ekor unta, dan 40 ekor di antaranya bunting.

Adapun pembunuhan tidak sengaja (khatha’) diklasifikasi menjadi dua macam: (1) Seseorang melakukan suatu perbuatan yang tidak ditujukan untuk membunuh seseorang, namun tanpa sengaja ternyata mengakibatkan terbunuhnya seseorang. Misalnya, ada orang memanah burung, namun terkena manusia hingga mati. (2) Seseorang yang membunuh orang yang dikiranya kafir harbi di dâr al-kufr, tetapi ternyata orang yang dibunuhnya itu telah masuk Islam. Pada jenis pembunuhan pertama, sanksinya adalah membayar diyat 100 ekor unta dan membayar kafarah dengan cara membebaskan budak. Jika tidak memiliki budak, pelaku harus berpuasa selama 2 bulan berturut-turut. Dalam kasus kedua, sanksinya adalah membayar kafarah saja, dan tidak wajib diyat.

Sanksi untuk pembunuhan karena ketidaksengajaan adalah diyat 100 ekor onta dan membebaskan budak. Jika tidak ada budak, wajib berpuasa selama 2 bulan berturut-turut.

Adapun jinâyat terhadap organ tubuh, baik terhadap organ tubuh maupun tulang, sanksinya adalah diyat. Tidak ada qishash untuk penyerangan terhadap organ tubuh maupun tulang secara mutlak, kecuali pada kasus penyerangan terhadap gigi, dan kasus jarh (pelukaan di badan). Hanya saja, kasus penyerangan gigi atau jarh bisa saja dikenai diyat. Lalu kapan pada kasus penyerangan terhadap gigi dikenai qishash dan kapan dikenai diyat saja? Menurut fukaha, jika penyerangannya secara sengaja, dikenai hukuman qishash; sedangkan jika tidak sengaja, dikenai diyat yang besarnya telah ditetapkan di dalam as-Sunnah. Jika orang yang dilukai tidak meminta qishash, pelaku penyerangan hanya wajib membayar diyat. Dalam kasus penyerangan pada kepala (asy-syijaj), sanksinya hanyalah diyat, dan tidak ada qishash.

Kadar diyat atas penyerangan badan dan kepala ada yang telah ditetapkan di dalam as-Sunnah, ada pula yang belum ditetapkan. Jika telah ditetapkan dalam as-Sunnah, diyatnya sesuai dengan apa yang disebut; misalnya pada kasus jaifah dan pelukaan terhadap kelamin anak perempuan yang masih kecil. Adapun kasus penyerangan terhadap badan yang kadar diyat-nya tidak disebutkan oleh as-Sunnah, maka sanksinya adalah hukumah yang adil.


3. Ta‘zîr

Ta‘zîr adalah sanksi atas kemaksiatan yang di dalamnya tidak had dan kafarah. Pada dasarnya, sanksi ta‘zîr ditetapkan berdasarkan pendapat seorang qâdhi dengan mempertimbangkan kasus, pelaku, politik, dan sebagainya. Di dalam buku ini, Dr. Abdurrahman al-Maliki mengelompokkan kasus ta‘zîr menjadi tujuh: (1) pelanggaran terhadap kehormatan; (2) penyerangan terhadap nama baik; (3) tindak yang bisa merusak akal; (4) penyerangan terhadap harta milik orang lain; (4) ganggungan terhadap keamanan atau privacy; (5) mengancam keamanan Negara; (6) kasus-kasus yang berkenaan dengan agama; (7) kasus-kasus ta‘zîr lainnya.


4. Mukhâlafât

Dr. Abdurrahman al-Maliki memisahkan kasus mukhâlafât dari ta‘zîr. Pemisahan ini tentunya berbeda dengan sebagian besar fukaha yang memasukkan mukhâlafah dalam bab ta‘zîr. Menurut beliau, fakta mukhâlafât berbeda dengan ta’zir. Oleh karena itu, mukhâlafât berdiri sendiri dan terpisah dari ta‘zîr. Menurut beliau, mukhâlafât adalah tidak menaati ketetapan yang dikeluarkan oleh Negara, baik yang berwujud larangan maupun perintah.

BBM dan SUBSIDI

Istilah subsidi sangat akrab di telinga kita. Namun, meski akrab, kata ini kurang bersahabat. Masalahnya, yang sering kita dengar justru Pemerintah akan mencabut subsidi suatu barang atau jasa dengan macam-macam dalih sehingga harganya naik. Walhasil, rakyat tidak makin sejahtera, tetapi malah makin sengsara.

Mengapa pencabutan subsidi menjadi kebijakan favorit Pemerintah untuk mengurangi beban anggarannya? Bagaimana pandangan Islam seputar subsidi? Tulisan ini mencoba menjawabnya.


Pengertian dan Fakta Subsidi

Subsidi adalah suatu bentuk bantuan keuangan (financial assistance; Arab: i’anah maliyah), yang biasanya dibayar oleh pemerintah, dengan tujuan untuk menjaga stabilitas harga-harga, atau untuk mempertahankan eksistensi kegiatan bisnis, atau untuk mendorong berbagai kegiatan ekonomi pada umumnya. Istilah subsidi dapat juga digunakan untuk bantuan yang dibayar oleh non-pemerintah, seperti individu atau institusi non-pemerintah. Namun, ini lebih sering disebut derma atau sumbangan (charity). (http://en.wikipedia.org). Subsidi dapat juga berbentuk kebijakan proteksionisme atau hambatan perdagangan (trade barrier) dengan cara menjadikan barang dan jasa domestik bersifat kompetitif terhadap barang dan jasa impor (ibid.)

Dalam sistem Kapitalisme, subsidi merupakan salah satu instrumen pengendalian tidak langsung. Grossman dalam Sistem-Sistem Ekonomi (1995) menerangkan bahwa dalam sistem Kapitalisme terdapat dua macam pengendalian ekonomi oleh pemerintah, yaitu pengendalian langsung dan tidak langsung. Pengendalian langsung adalah kebijakan yang bekerja dengan mengabaikan mekanisme pasar, contohnya embargo perdagangan dan penetapan harga tertinggi suatu barang. Adapun pengendalian tidak langsung adalah kebijakan yang bekerja melalui mekanisme pasar, misalnya penetapan tarif serta segala macam pajak dan subsidi. (Grossman, 1995).

Subsidi dapat dikategorikan dengan berbagai macam cara, bergantung pada alasan di balik subsidi, pihak penerima, dan sumber pembiayaan subsidi (bisa dari pemerintah, konsumen, penerimaan pajak, dll). (http://en.wikipedia.org).

Dalam RAPBN-P 2008, secara garis besar ada dua subsidi, yaitu subsidi energi dan subsidi non-energi. Subsidi energi meliputi subsidi BBM dan listrik. Subsidi non-energi meliputi delapan jenis subsidi, yaitu subsidi pangan (beras untuk orang miskin), subsidi pupuk, subsidi benih, subsidi public service obligation (untuk PT Kereta Api Indonesia, PT Pelni, dan PT Pos Indonesia), subsidi bunga kredit program (bunga dibayar pemerintah), subsidi bahan baku kedelai, subsidi minyak goreng (operasi pasar), dan subsidi pajak (pajak ditanggung pemerintah). (Nota Keuangan & RAPBN-P 2008, III-4)


Subsidi dalam Kapitalisme

Subsidi terkait dengan persoalan peran negara dalam ekonomi, terutama dalam pelayanan publik (public service). Karenanya, sikap Kapitalisme terhadap subsidi berbeda-beda, bergantung pada konsep peran negara menurut aliran Kapitalisme yang dianut. Secara sederhana dapat dikatakan pandangan Keynesian yang pro-subsidi berbeda dengan pandangan aliran neo-liberal yang anti-subsidi.

Sejak pertengahan hingga akhir abad ke-19, di Barat diterapkan Kapitalisme klasik/liberal (Ebenstein & Fogelman, 1994). Slogannya adalah laissez faire, yang didukung Adam Smith dalam bukunya, The Wealth of Nations (1776). Slogan berbahasa Prancis itu Inggrisnya adalah leave us alone. Artinya, “Biarkan kami (pengusaha) sendiri, tanpa intervensi pemerintah.” Walhasil, peran negara sangat terbatas, karena semuanya diserahkan pada mekanisme pasar. Kapitalisme liberal ini terbukti gagal, ketika tahun 1929-1939 terjadi Depresi Besar (Great Depression) di Amerika Serikat akibat keruntuhan pasar modal di Wall Street tahun 1929. (Adams, 2004).

Sejak 1930-an, Kapitalisme berganti aliran. Kapitalisme liberal yang anti intervensi pemerintah kemudian berganti menjadi Kapitalisme Keynesian, dengan momentun program The New Deal oleh Presiden Franklin D. Roosevelt tahun 1933. Disebut Kapitalisme Keynesian karena mengikuti ide John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) yang mendorong intervensi pemerintah dalam bukunya, The General Theory of Employment (1936).

Antara 1930-an hingga 1970-an, Kapitalisme Keynesian ini menjadi basis dari welfare state (negara kesejahteraan) yang memberikan porsi besar pada intervensi pemerintah dalam kegiatan ekonomi (termasuk subsidi dari pemerintah). Karena itu, Kapitalisme Keynesian dapat dikatakan bersikap pro-subsidi.

Namun, tahun 1973 ketika harga minyak dunia naik, timbul persoalan ekonomi di Barat yang tidak dapat diatasi oleh Kapitalisme Keynesian, yaitu stagflasi. Ini kombinasi antara pengangguran (stagnasi) dengan kenaikan harga (inflasi). Menurut doktrin Keynesian, kedua problem ini tidak mungkin terjadi bersamaan. Masyarakat dapat mengalami salah satunya, tetapi tidak kedua-duanya. Kekecewaan terhadap Keynesian inilah yang mendorong upaya pencarian solusi baru.

Lahirlah Kapitalisme aliran neo-liberal (neoliberalisme/neokonservatisme), dengan penggagas utamanya, Friedrich Hayek dan Milton Friedman.

Neoliberalisme adalah versi liberalisme klasik yang dimodernisasi, dengan tema-tema utamanya adalah: pasar bebas, peran negara yang terbatas dan individualisme. Karena peran negara terbatas, maka neoliberalisme memandang intervensi pemerintah sebagai “ancaman yang paling serius” bagi mekanisme pasar. (Adams, 2004).

Dari sinilah kita dapat memahami, mengapa pencabutan subsidi sangat dianjurkan dalam neoliberalisme, sebab subsidi dianggap sebagai bentuk intervensi pemerintah. Ringkasnya, sikap neoliberalisme pada dasarnya adalah anti-subsidi. Ini karena menurut neoliberalisme, pelayanan publik harus mengikuti mekanisme pasar, yaitu negara harus menggunakan prinsip untung-rugi dalam penyelenggaraan bisnis publik. Pelayanan publik murni seperti dalam bentuk subsidi dianggap pemborosan dan inefisiensi. (http://id.wikipedia.org).

Dalam skala internasional, neoliberalisme ini kemudian menjadi hegemoni global melalui tiga aktor utamanya: WTO, IMF dan Bank Dunia. Bank Dunia dan IMF terkenal dengan program SAP (Structural Adjustment Program) yang berbahaya, yang salah satunya adalah penghapusan subsidi. (Wibowo & Wahono, 2003; The International Forum on Globalization, 2004).

Hegemoni neoliberalisme inilah alasan prinsipil yang dapat menjelaskan mengapa Pemerintah kita sering mencabut subsidi berbagai barang kebutuhan masyarakat, seperti subsidi BBM dan listrik. Alasan ideologis inilah yang akhirnya melahirkan alasan-alasan lainnya yang bersifat teknis-ekonomis, misalnya alasan bahwa subsidi membebani negara, subsidi membuat rakyat tidak mandiri, subsidi mematikan persaingan ekonomi dan sebagainya. Ini semua bukan alasan prinsipil. Alasan prinsipilnya adalah karena Pemerintah tunduk pada hegemoni neoliberalisme, atau telah mengadopsi neoliberalisme, yang berpandangan bahwa subsidi adalah bentuk intervensi pemerintah yang hanya akan mendistorsi mekanisme pasar.


Subsidi dalam Islam

Islam berbeda dengan Kapitalisme. Jika Kapitalisme memandang subsidi dari perspekstif intervensi pemerintah atau mekanisme pasar, Islam memandang subsidi dari perspektif syariah, yaitu kapan subsidi boleh dan kapan subsidi wajib dilakukan oleh negara.

Jika subsidi diartikan sebagai bantuan keuangan yang dibayar oleh negara maka Islam mengakui adanya subsidi dalam pengertian ini. Subsidi dapat dianggap salah satu cara (uslub) yang boleh dilakukan negara (Khilafah), karena termasuk pemberian harta milik negara kepada individu rakyat (i’tha’u ad-dawlah min amwaliha li ar-ra’iyah) yang menjadi hak Khalifah. Khalifah Umar bin al-Khaththab pernah memberikan harta dari Baitul Mal (Kas Negara) kepada para petani di Irak agar mereka dapat mengolah lahan petanian mereka. (An-Nabhani, 2004: 119).

Atas dasar itu, boleh negara memberikan subsidi kepada individu rakyat yang bertindak sebagai produsen, seperti subsidi pupuk dan benih bagi petani, atau subsidi bahan baku kedelai bagi perajin tahu dan tempe, dan sebagainya. Boleh juga negara memberikan subsidi kepada individu rakyat yang bertindak sebagai konsumen, seperti subsidi pangan (sembako murah), atau subsidi minyak goreng, dan sebagainya.

Subsidi boleh juga diberikan negara untuk sektor pelayanan publik (al-marafiq al-’ammah) yang dilaksanakan oleh negara, misalnya: (1) jasa telekomunikasi (al-khidmat al-baridiyah) seperti telepon, pos, fax, internet; (2) jasa perbankan syariah (al-khidmat al-mashrifiyah) seperti transfer, simpanan, dan penukaran valuta asing; dan (3) jasa transportasi umum (al-muwashalat al-’ammah) seperti kereta api, kapal laut, dan pesawat terbang. (Zallum, 2004: 104)

Subsidi untuk sektor energi (seperti BBM dan listrik) dapat juga diberikan negara kepada rakyat. Namun perlu dicatat, bahwa BBM dan listrik dalam Islam termasuk barang milik umum (milkiyah ‘ammah). Dalam distribusinya kepada rakyat, Khalifah tidak terikat dengan satu cara tertentu. Khalifah dapat memberikannya secara gratis, atau menjual kepada rakyat dengan harga sesuai ongkos produksi, atau sesuai harga pasar, atau memberikan kepada rakyat dalam bentuk uang tunai sebagai keuntungan penjualannya, dan sebagainya. Di sinilah subsidi dapat juga diberikan agar BBM dan listrik yang didistribusikan itu harganya semakin murah dan bahkan gratis jika memungkinkan. (Zallum, 2004: 83).

Semua subsidi yang dicontohkan di atas hukum asalnya boleh, karena hukum asal negara memberikan hartanya kepada individu rakyat adalah boleh. Pemberian ini merupakan hak Khalifah dalam mengelola harta milik negara (milkiyah al-dawlah). Khalifah boleh memberikan harta kepada satu golongan dan tidak kepada yang lain; boleh pula Khalifah mengkhususkan pemberian untuk satu sektor (misal pertanian), dan tidak untuk sektor lainnya. Semua ini adalah hak Khalifah berdasarkan pertimbangan syariah sesuai dengan pendapat dan ijtihadnya demi kemaslahatan rakyat. (An-Nabhani, 2004: 224).

Namun, dalam kondisi terjadinya ketimpangan ekonomi, pemberian subsidi yang asalnya boleh ini menjadi wajib hukumnya, karena mengikuti kewajiban syariah untuk mewujudkan keseimbangan ekonomi (at-tawazun al-iqtishadi) (Thabib, 2004:318; Syauman, t.t.: 73). Hal ini karena Islam telah mewajibkan beredarnya harta di antara seluruh individu dan mencegah beredarnya harta hanya pada golongan tertentu:

كَيْ لاَ يَكُونَ دُولَةً بَيْنَ اْلأَغْنِيَاءِ مِنْكُمْ

Supaya harta itu jangan hanya beredar di antara orang-orang kaya saja di antara kalian. (QS al-Hasyr [59] : 7).

Nabi saw. telah membagikan fai‘ Bani Nadhir (harta milik negara) hanya kepada kaum Muhajirin, tidak kepada kaum Anshar, karena Nabi saw. melihat ketimpangan ekonomi antara Muhajirin dan Anshar. (An-Nabhani, 2004: 249). Karenanya, di tengah naiknya harga minyak mentah dunia sekarang, subsidi BBM tidak sekadar boleh, tetapi sudah wajib hukumnya, agar ketimpangan di masyarakat antara kaya dan miskin tidak semakin lebar.

Khusus untuk sektor pendidikan, keamanan dan kesehatan, Islam telah mewajibkan negara menyelenggarakan pelayanan ketiga sektor tersebut secara cuma-cuma bagi rakyat (Abdul Ghani, 2004). Karena itu, jika pembiayaan negara untuk ketiga sektor tersebut dapat disebut subsidi maka subsidi menyeluruh untuk ketiga sektor itu adalah wajib hukumnya secara syar’i. Wallahu a’lam.

Minyak, Bilangan penyabunan

Minyak ditimbang 1,000 gram dalam labu erlenmeyer 250 mL, ditambahkan 50 mL KOH alkoholis 0,5 N. Lalu direfluks selama 30 menit agar semua minyak tersabunkan. Campuran kemudian didinginkan pada suhu ruang dan ditambahkan 5 tetes indikator PP selanjutnya dititrasi dengan HCl 0,5 N (distandarisasi dengan boraks) sampai warna merah muda hilang. KOH mula-mula dapat diketahui dari blanko, blanko berisi 50 mL KOH alkoholis, 5 tetes indikator PP kemudian dititrasi dengan HCl 0,5 N standart sampai warna merah muda tepat hilang. Perhitungan bilangan penyabunan berdasarkan persamaan (Anwar,1994)

Bilangan penyabunan = [(Tb-Ts)x N HCl x Ar KOH]/Massa sampel
T¬b = Volume HCl yang di butuhkan untuk titrasi Blanko (mL)
Ts = Volume HCl yang di butuhkan untuk titrasi sampel (mL)