Kelindan Kata

Qusthan Abqary

It is interesting enough to read one article whose title is “Can Muslims say “Merry Christmas”?” written by Mahmudi Asyari and Muizzudin in The Jakarta Post, December 24^th, 2008.

They wrote: “Since every December Indonesian Muslims face this issue, it is better that all religious leaders have a mutual understanding and an open dialog and so contribute to a conducive atmosphere for harmony and tolerance among the followers of different religions. In the matter of wishing “Merry Christmas”, Muslims should take all aspects comprehensively. Muslims can wish Christians “Merry Christmas” as if they were celebrating the birthday of another Prophet and Messenger whom Islam acknowledges.”

I note three points about their article which are (1) mutual understanding, (2) open dialog, and (3) Muslims allow saying “Merry Christmas” as long as they celebrate it only as the birthday of another Prophet and Messenger whom also ackowledges in Islam. All those three points refer to the sake of harmony and tolerance.

Some questions arise here. First, did not the existence of harmony among religious people in Indonesia never need that kind of saying since long time ago even before the declaration of independence? Did Pela Gandong in Sulawesi, for instance, give special order to all religious people in their common community to say “Merry Christmas” or other kinds of saying or wishing in regard to the existence of harmony? Does not harmony among religious people base on their own degree of religiousness to consider the others as human and need to be respected?

I am wondering why the campaign for saying “Merry Christmas” never be seen before but there are still so many harmonious and tolerant communities scattered on all over pre-Indonesia area.

Second, what is so great about tolerance? Y. B. Mangunwijaya (RIP), was reported, had ever asked to all monks in one banquet when they talked about the issue of tolerance. He arguably asked about the position of Mohammad, Jahwe, Moses, Buddha, and others God and Messenger in many religions in regard to their own Catholic’s safety road-map if they accept the issues of tolerance and pluralism.

I do agree if Muslims can wish “Merry Christmas” as if they were celebrating it just as one cultural event of other religious community as what happens in the West and were not celebrating the birthday of another Prophet and Messenger whom Islam acknowledges. What is so important to celebrating another Prophet’s and Messenger’s birthday?

Just let some different interpretations among Muslims as it is. There is no guarantee that present day interpretation of Islam will always be the trans-historical Truth (with capital T) just as Mahmudi Asyari and Muizzudin oppose Ibn Katsir’s interpretation.

Mahmudi Asyari and Muizzudin ought to realize that Islam and also Muslims all over the world do not have any single and authoritative organization which can make mutual understanding among ulema themselves though open dialog still can be does.

Open dialog has to always done though there are so many Islamic communities with their own kind of interpretations and school of thought. But it assumes not only the same degree of intelligence but also the similar standing points of all different religious communities. It is impossible to reach the same standing points among different religious communities because all religions base their own faith on different Gods and holy books.

Here comes the important of tolerance. Third, is tolerance just about the willing to wish “Merry Christmas” to the Christians? If it so, tolerance has been understood narrow-mindedly by some ridiculous people who claim that they are really religious. I think that the tolerance not just about wishing “Merry Christmas”, but progressively means, how to help the others to fulfil their basic needs without concerning their religions. On the other hand, the tolerance, passively means, how to be patience when facing other kind of differences as long as not harmful to ourselves and our faith.

In this case, Mahmudi Asyari and Muizzudin will be much better if they just let the different act among Muslims than campaign for their utopian dream of making mutual understanding among ulema all over the world and celebrating the birthday of another Prophet and Messenger.

I think that there is nothing so great about saying “Merry Christmas” because pre-Indonesia’s history shows that that kind of saying or wishing never exist before to guarantee the existence of the previous tolerant and harmonious communities. Even so I still say “Merry Christmas” to the others base on my own perception that Christmas can be positioned as one cultural event and I can enjoy it on that way. Do not religions also about culture?

Qusthan Abqary

There was one dialogue between ex-military general who become president with professor of economics from reputable university at their home country. Those two important men got debate on whether the government should or should not boost the oil’s price in their country according to its price which has been increased in the global market.

The professor asked, “Mr. President, are you populist?” And then Mr. President arbitrarily answered, “Of course, I am popular!”

What the professor means is about the individual inclination of the president. By asking this question, the professor hopes that Mr. President would like to show his strong commitment to the poor and unlucky citizens, and then not to boost the oil price in their home country.

Unfortunately, the president has slipped his mind and tongue by thinking in the structure and vocabulary of his native language, but then answering the question in English. It makes the discussion disconnected and then Mr. President boosts the oil’s price in his oily country.

Does everyone also have to think in the English’s linguistic way of thinking while speaking or writing English than using his or her native linguistic way of thinking? This is one problem.

However, it will be very rude for everyone, especially who arbitrarily born and grow up with one mother language which relatively less complex than English, to speaking or writing English in its linguistic way of thinking.

It morally does not acceptable to force someone for thinking in the English’s linguistic way of thinking while speaking or writing English than using his or her native’s linguistic way of thinking. Compulsion of how someone has to think is not much different with how fascism, communism, and other authoritarian regimes rule their citizens’ mind and its way of thinking.

The dialogue shows that both professor and Mr. President’s native language less strict when defining the difference between populist with popular. In Bahasa Indonesia as such, populist refers to merakyat and popular refers to terkenal. Those two words have different but related meaning in Bahasa Indonesia.

When someone really does populist, he must be popular too. But not on the contrary. When someone gets popular, he does not always populist too. Populist person tends to live in a humble way but popular person does not always live in such way. Popular person tends to make some controversial things to keep his or her popularity on the top but populist person does not want to make some controversies.

Mr. President seems not to realize those two different meanings. He presumably slipped his mind and tongue caused by resemble pronunciation of those two different words and probably should give immediate reaction when he asked by the professor.

The vagueness also means that there is one difference between understandings with translating. According to Wes Sharrock and Rupert Read, “we have to assume that the words of the other speaker are used with the same meaning that our words have, that they do translate into our own meanings” (emphasize originally did by the author, Kuhn: Philosopher of Scientific Revolution, Polity press, 2002, pp. 146).

But there is another question which appears here: What are the measures for assuming “that the words of the other speaker are used with the same meaning that our words have, that they do translate into our own meanings”?

Does dictionary, for instance, really adequate to be one measure? Does someone, who knows both languages, sufficient enough to be another measure? We obviously do agree that dictionary made by someone who knows both languages, but not on the contrary. It implies that the process of translating still depends and related to each person’s assumption of the words. It also means that someone who is not native speaker of English still can thinking in his or her native’s linguistic way of thinking because translating assumes the same meaning of using different words either in English and the alien language.

In the populist-popular case, Mr. President thinks that those two words, in his native language, have the same meaning, and then arbitrarily assumes that it almost the same with the real meaning in English. If one president can does such fatal linguistic mistake, how with his less literate and less educated people?

What ever it takes, at least, the less literate and less educated people do not ever boost the oil’s price only to get balance on the state budget and then turn it down caused by the narrow-minded interest of politics which are (1) increasing his popularity, (2) making himself seem populist, (3) collecting people’s sympathies and then (4) winning the next national election.

Qusthan Abqary

If you have ever visit Yogyakarta, there must be one thing that you always see but probably never been realized that it contains some problematic issues. The crowded in Malioboro as such, never been completed without rows of motorcycles be parked on the road. Some cars get parked on some alleys linked to Malioboro.

Tukang parkir, special call for the parking men, can earn money 30,000 up to 50,000 rupiahs per day. They are not poor enough based on the United Nation standard of poverty.

Youth will be less curious to pursue their future through education, because they believe that there is guarantee not to become unemployed, after graduation or even not to graduate, by being the parking men. This work does not need education nor special skill with less risk if you do the job unseriously.

Youth easily can be influenced by temptation to earn much money easily and not against the law. You just have to use whistle; vest to show that you are one of the parking man; hat to protect your face from the sun; and some cardboards. What you have to do are only blowing the whistle to control where the motorcycle or car should be park; to tidy up the rows; to cover the motorcycle’s seat or car’s windshield by using cardboard; and then collect 500 up to 1,000 rupiahs per motorcycle or car when it is done.

On the other hand, if you, as one rider, lost your crash helmet; got some scratches on the motorcycle or car; even lost your motorcycle on the parking area; neither the parking men nor their holding institutions will never give any compensation instead of their lack of attention while working.

It does not rare that the parking men ask much more expensive than normal price of the park ticket. It always happen that rider only leaves behind peeve after bereaved one of their properties or got some scratches on the motorcycle, car, or crash helmet. Moreover there are some claims on the parking area that the parking men do not responsible for all kind of bereavements.

What kind of service which does not give any guarantee? Should we still pay for that kind of service? What kind of business which never give mutual benefits to the both side? Can we still call it as one kind of service? Can we let the youth not to pursue his or her future through education caused by the unnecessary temptation?

I, perhaps, am too stupid to comprehend and accept that kind of business. I, possibly, am too fool to imagine if someday Yogyakarta will not become the city of education anymore which it means that there will not be any good human resources stay and live there. I have no idea whether the local government realize it or they have been become so busy to think such not so crucial problems.

It does not exaggerate to say that the parking men are not much different with hoodlums who strain their will to the others. If parking business will like to immagined on the other way, it should be manage as well as possible. Not just about collecting money from riders but also move the motorcycle, for instance, as carefully as possible.

The local government has to make some trainings for the fledgling parking men and starting to think how to make some compensations, though not compatible with the price of the loosing or broken things, by the benefits of every months.

Many titles have been given to Yogyakarta. But there will be one more title, probably hard to accepted by local people, that is the city of parking. It simply because Yogyakarta depends too much on the parking business.

Qusthan Abqary

“The family do not willing yet that the death sentence accused being executed. Predestined hour of death is only the right of Allah, can not be taken by human.”

-Jafar Shodiq-

That statement issued by Amrozi and Ali Ghufron a.k.a. Muklas’ brother on November 3^rd, 2004 when submitted judicial review at the state court of Denpasar, Bali (Koran Tempo, “Peninjauan Kembali Tak Halangi Eksekusi”, November 4^th, 2008, pp. A2).

What we called as “right”, much or less tends to what some people also known as “destiny”. Professor Quraish Shihab, in one religious programme on Metro TV at last Ramadhan, explained that there are so many misleading about destiny. According to him, destiny indeed by Allah S.W.T and does not one and only, so human gets freedom to choose which destiny are going to be done. In the other words, it could be say that human autonomy still exists even in the frame of destiny.

That human autonomy will always be interacted with external factor such as nature and the state. For Amrozi, Ali Ghufron, and Imam Samudra case, we could say that they had been choosed their own destiny which is abolished their life through the death penalty. The existence of their own autonomy as human also could be seen at their effort to be executed not by shooting but rather by beheaded. When they died by shooting, it shown that the state – with all of its legal instruments – is playing the most importance role of interaction between the accused with state.

On the other hand, Shodiq’s statement which using ‘right’, ostensibly projected an image that the death issue and destiny entirely determined by Allah SWT while human and the state impressively do not have all autonomy and/or freedom to get involve. It will be much more convenient if the word ‘destiny’ practically used on the Shihab’s sense.

Contrasting between the right and power of Allah SWT with the right and power of human diametrically is one kind of inadequate act, if it does not stray either mislead. The matter precisely dwarf the greatness either paralyse the power of Allah SWT. When the execution work like what the state has been decided, and that stray perspective still be holt, so the power of Allah SWT will be desacralized. Thus that diametrical contrasting will become unhealthy for one’s theological understanding.

Other kind of death like harakiri, euthanasia, or abortion seem slipped away from the attention of Shodiq. All of those three things are unique and have special kind of death which strengthen one assumption that the diametrical contrasting really inadequate. It is very hard to become dissolved how Allah SWT can “cruelly” decide that A will be died by harakiri; B will be died by euthanasia; and C will be died by abortion as such.

On the other hand, it does not mean that all of those three things become the manifestation of the extreme existantialism. The last one does not different enough with Shodiq’s opinion. If he stands on the inaccurate extreme spot about the power of Allah, so, the extreme existentialism also stands on the inaccurate spot about the power of human. Human can not entirely invulnerable of the influence of nature and Allah SWT. One preference to does harakiri as such, can not entirely free from some external factors like poverty, stress, untill unclear whispering. Allah SWT creates many destinies which can be choosen by human with involving some interactions with nature.

The difference forms of death relatively could shown which party whom becoming the most influential. Harakiri for instance, can be told that the person much more influential than nature, even the last one also gave some influences. Euthanasia has wide-ranging motivations, whether economical, psychological, or healthwise considerations. Abortion also has various motivations, whether social or economical pressures, and others.

Allah SWT really does omnipotence but it does not mean that He can rules authoritarian as human does when interpret religions or run out countries. Allah SWT really does omniscient but it does not mean that He can morally intervenes all of human acts. Human is really the creature of God but it does not mean that they do not have any free will. Human naturally has autonomy but it does not mean that they do immune of nature and God. Perhaps those are the ways of the eminent character of human, thus they have higher status than angel and genie. The speciality has given by God until the end of human’s death through the varieties of faiths as options to get choosed by human.